Public ideas
Will artificial intelligence erode people’s critical thinking skills?
Deborah Brown of the Critical Thinking Project at the University of Queensland addresses these questions in a post on Open Forum.
She summarizes published work on this question, starting with a description of what we mean by critical thinking. It’s not well-defined, but it has to do with “thinking well”:
… by judging our own thinking processes against established norms and methods of good reasoning. These norms include values such as precision, clarity, accuracy, breadth, depth, relevance, significance and cogency of arguments.
She goes on to evaluate scholarly attempts to define critical thinking, but comes back to her idea of “thinking well” – which must involve “an overarching concern for the truth, which is something AI systems do not have”.
She covers other research which asked knowledge workers – health care professionals, engineers, teachers – how they use AI.
The study found people who had higher confidence in AI generally displayed less critical thinking, while people with higher confidence in themselves tended to display more critical thinking.
Out of curiosity I asked ChatGBT the same question: “Will artificial intelligence erode people’s critical thinking skills?” The response is below.
It depends on how AI is used. If people rely on AI for everything without questioning its outputs, then yes, critical thinking skills could weaken over time. However, if AI is used as a tool to enhance thinking—by challenging ideas, providing alternative perspectives, and assisting in analysis—it could actually strengthen critical thinking.
The key is mindful usage. Just as calculators didn’t make people bad at math but changed how they approached problem-solving, AI can shift how people engage with information. If people remain curious, ask questions, and verify AI-generated content, their critical thinking can stay sharp.
On the basis of AI’s response I recommend Brown’s article.
Trump isn’t deranged: he’s focussed and purposeful
That is how Francis Fukuyama sees Trump, in a short post on Persuasion (recommended by Nicholas Gruen): Don’t say “Chaotic” or “Transactional”. His tactics may be confusing, and his measures may be poorly executed, but they are consistent with the policies he promised during the election campaign, and with the agenda spelled out by Project 25.
There is consistency in his dealings with other countries, Fukuyama writes:
Trump’s actions are deeply selfish, either in terms of his personal power and interests, or else represent a kind of classic 19th century form of realism, in which great powers simply seek to maximize their power regardless of values or ideology.