A new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has ignited debate over the cognitive impact of AI writing tools like ChatGPT, revealing that their use significantly reduces brain activity and leads to less creative, more “soulless” work. The findings, published in June 2025, raise questions over the future role of artificial intelligence in education, as policymakers and educators across the world—including in Thailand—navigate the integration of new technologies in the classroom.
The MIT research analyzed the neural effects of using different writing aids among young adults. A group of 54 college-age participants was assigned to write SAT-style essays answering complex philosophical queries, such as whether a perfect society is truly desirable or if individuals who are more fortunate have a moral obligation to help those who are less so. The subjects were split into three groups: one using OpenAI’s ChatGPT, another using Google Search, and a third working without any digital assistance. Researchers monitored brain activity using EEG sensors tracking 32 regions of the brain during each writing session.
The results were striking. ChatGPT users exhibited up to 55% less brain activity compared to those relying solely on their own cognitive skills. The Google Search group showed an intermediate level of engagement, but all digital-aided groups fell short of the neural dynamism seen in the “brain-only” participants. Moreover, ChatGPT users frequently struggled to recall the content of essays they had just written, suggesting a shallow level of cognitive processing—information appeared to pass through their minds superficially rather than being deeply absorbed or understood (IFLScience).
One of the most revealing parts of the study occurred when groups switched tools. When previous ChatGPT users were asked to write without AI, their neural engagement remained lower, and their writing reflected vocabulary commonly associated with AI-generated content. This lingering effect led the researchers to coin the term “cognitive debt”—a phenomenon where habitual reliance on AI tools erodes critical thinking, creativity, and independent inquiry over time.
According to the authors, “When individuals fail to critically engage with a subject, their writing might become biased and superficial. This pattern reflects the accumulation of cognitive debt, a condition in which repeated reliance on external systems like LLMs replaces the effortful cognitive processes required for independent thinking.” They warn that such debt, while it may reduce mental effort in the short term, carries long-term costs, including “diminished critical inquiry, increased vulnerability to manipulation, and decreased creativity.”
Expert reviews confirmed that even though AI-generated essays were technically precise and structurally sound, they lacked depth and individuality. As noted by one participating English teacher, “Some essays across all topics stood out because of a close to perfect use of language and structure while simultaneously failing to give personal insights or clear statements. These, often lengthy, essays included standard ideas, recurring typical formulations and statements, which made the use of AI in the writing process rather obvious. We, as English teachers, perceived these essays as ‘soulless’, in a way, as many sentences were empty with regard to content and essays lacked personal nuances.”
These results resonate with concerns echoed by educators in Thailand. As Thai schools and universities begin to experiment with AI writing tools, officials from the Ministry of Education and leading academic institutions have expressed both excitement over modernization potential and caution about its unintended consequences. A director within the Office of Basic Education Commission emphasized in a recent forum that while AI fluency is crucial for future careers, foundational skills—critical thinking, creativity, moral reasoning—must remain at the heart of Thai education.
Thailand’s cultural approach to education places high value on developing well-rounded individuals with strong analytical and empathetic abilities. Education policymakers often reference the sufficiency economy philosophy, which stresses balanced and prudent development, as a guiding principle for reform (World Bank). The prospect of widespread cognitive debt—where students become proficient at operating technology but weaker in reasoning and expression—runs counter to these national goals.
Historical parallels can be drawn with previous waves of educational technology adoption in Thailand. The Smart Classroom initiative of the early 2010s, for instance, promoted tablets and e-learning but later came under scrutiny for failing to raise literacy or critical thinking outcomes as expected (The Nation Thailand). Thai teachers have since advocated for blended learning models, combining traditional pedagogy with judicious use of technology—a perspective that gains new relevance in the wake of the MIT findings.
Globally, AI is rapidly permeating higher education and professional environments. According to a 2023 UNESCO report (UNESCO), most countries are grappling with questions of how to harness AI’s power for personalized learning while safeguarding creativity and independent thought. The MIT research suggests that, without careful policy, AI could inadvertently widen skill gaps and diminish the qualities that make human thinking distinct.
Looking ahead, the study recommends that educators and students adopt AI writing tools with caution. They suggest reserving such technology as a supplement for grammar correction or information gathering rather than as a replacement for cognitive problem-solving and creative composition. Integration should be sensitive to age, with younger learners encouraged to build foundational skills unaided before engaging with AI support. In Thailand, this aligns with the kingdom’s 20-year National Strategy, which prioritizes creative thinking, digital literacy, and civic consciousness (Thailand Government Public Relations Department).
Practically, Thai parents, teachers, and students are advised to reflect critically before relying on AI for writing assignments. Instead, classroom activities should emphasize original thought, debate, and reflection, with digital tools positioned as assistants rather than crutches. Curriculum planners might also consider professional development for teachers in AI literacy, helping them identify and mediate “cognitive debt” in their students’ work.
As Thailand seeks to foster a globally competitive yet culturally grounded generation, the lesson from MIT’s research is clear: technology must serve as an enhancer—not a replacement—of human ingenuity. Future studies, including local research adapted to the Thai context, will be crucial to guiding national policy on AI in education and ensuring that new tools enrich, rather than erode, the “soul” of learning.
Sources can be found at IFLScience, World Bank, The Nation Thailand, UNESCO, and Thailand Government Public Relations Department.