AI and the Rapid Degradation of Critical Thinking Skills
People outsourced critical thinking to Google. With the intelligent development of AI, we must fight to retain our ability to independently think and evaluate information.
The degradation of critical thinking skills will continue at a rapid pace as Artificial Intelligence continues to synthesize human thoughts more succinctly. We can already see this while watching the argumentative discourse online and on-the-street interviews. The degradation we see now is not from AI, though. It’s a result of Google and social media algorithms.
We can recognize the decline that happened when Google started being used as a verb. Don’t know the answer to a question? Google it. We have spent decades talking about the importance of media literacy and evaluating sources. The new generations of students and young adults who have always had access to these tools have not needed to develop the baseline fundamentals.
Ask Grok a question and ask for specific details. It provides a sophisticated analysis. The answers can be easily tailored for writing style, length, and perspective. I admittedly use Grok to help me research and understand topics. I use it as a tool. As a tool, it is immensely helpful. As a replacement for communication and critical thinking skills, it is dangerous.
I asked Grok about the degradation of math skills with the use of the calculator and the decline of critical thinking skills from the use of Google. It said studies show 40% of students struggle with basic math skills without tools. It said “A 2024 study in Computers & Education found students using AI for essays scored 10% lower on critical thinking metrics than peers writing manually. By 2040 writing education could shift toward “prompt engineering” or editing AI outputs, sidelining traditional composition.”
Grok added “By 2040, cognitive “deskilling” could mirror the 20% decline in mental math proficiency post-calculator.”
You’ve read this far and may be wondering why I am quoting Grok in my writing while criticizing the end result of relying upon this tool to answer questions. I was resistant at first, claiming to be a “purist” who doesn’t need AI tools to make my point. Once I started using it to search for niche information that once required deep Google searches, I found that it can help me conduct more thorough research quickly. I’m still using it as a tool, but not everyone has the same cognitive purity standards that I do. As I have demonstrated, even my purity test has been broken because the AI chat bot has been proven to be useful and helpful.
Social media helps you interact with friends and it is a tool we all enjoy using. However, it is a free service that uses all of us, our content, and our data as the product. Algorithms prioritize rage-induced topics. The early days of social media were primarily for talking about ourselves, our family, and what we’ve been doing. Once you start engaging with political content on social media, it becomes the main thing you see and interact with.
So, what is the point here? We have all warned about the dangers of isolation and dehumanizing individuals we are arguing with online, but a large portion of us still succumb to the algorithms. We are addicted to endless content and we seek drama for entertainment purposes, but we increase our screen time at the expense of enjoying nature and family. It increases depression. It is a tool that has become a net negative on society, in my opinion. It has taken hold in the culture and we can’t turn back.
I have certainly outsourced my critical thinking skills to Google more times than I can count. I may do this out of laziness or convenience, but ultimately, I hope to use these technologies as tools to boost my critical thinking skills. The path is clear for both directions. It is the same with AI. I intend to use AI as a tool to improve my understanding and my arguments when discussing policy. However, I have already used it to concisely state my relative position rather than taking the time to craft my own argument. Even those with pure intentions will fall victim to laziness and convenience.
Grok portrays itself as critically thinking in its responses, but it sometimes lays out a one-sided perspective. Sometimes, I push back and the chatbot admits it didn’t evaluate all of the data and perspectives. Grok also seems very agreeable. You can call out Grok for nearly anything, and it will usually agree with you to a certain extent.
As the calculator streamlined our ability to answer math problems, education adapted to prioritize understanding how to use the calculator and similar tools correctly. Writing skills will eventually be a niche skill while education adapts to teach AI literacy. If the calculator spits out a wrong number, most of us wouldn’t know. We trust the tool to provide a correct answer. When it comes to ideas, research, and critical thinking, we should not provide such blind trust in the tools we utilize.
Google doesn’t provide the answers. Google provides what it determines to be the best sources that will likely include the information you are looking for. It has far more information that any individual person does and usually provides the factual answers to most questions. The majority of people on social media only read the headline and they extrapolate the full-meaning of the article. However, the headline is the “hook” often intended to achieve clicks rather than concisely state the primary news information in 10 words or less.
AI literacy is very important as we move forward with this technology. Grok often doesn’t provide the sources. When I ask Grok for the sources, it provides dead links or titles to articles that I can’t find. This is why we must retain our ability to evaluate, check sources, and remain critical before we start to use “Grok” or “Chat GPT” as a verb. Stay diligent, friends!