# Proof: Using AI tools makes humans worse at critical thinking and original problem-solving.

- **Generated:** 2026-03-29
- **Verdict:** PROVED
- **Audit trail:** [proof_audit.md](proof_audit.md) | [proof.py](proof.py)

## Key Findings

- **4 independent sources** from different institutions all confirm that AI tool usage is associated with diminished critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, exceeding the threshold of 3 required for proof.
- Gerlich (2025) found a **strong negative correlation (r = -0.68)** between AI tool usage frequency and critical thinking scores in a study of 666 participants, with cognitive offloading as the mediating mechanism (B1).
- Lee et al. (2025, Microsoft Research / CHI) found that **higher confidence in AI is associated with less critical thinking effort** among 319 knowledge workers (B2).
- A University of Pennsylvania study cited in the PMC literature found that ChatGPT users solved **48% more problems but scored 17% lower on concept understanding** tests — showing AI boosts task completion while impairing deeper cognitive engagement (B4).

## Claim Interpretation

**Natural language claim:** "Using AI tools makes humans worse at critical thinking and original problem-solving."

**Formal interpretation:** The claim is interpreted as a consensus-of-evidence assertion: at least 3 independent, peer-reviewed or authoritative sources report that AI tool usage is associated with reduced critical thinking or problem-solving abilities.

**Operator rationale:** The threshold of 3 independent sources was chosen because the claim is a broad empirical assertion about human cognition. A single study could be an outlier; convergence across 3+ independent research teams with different methodologies (survey, experimental, expert commentary) constitutes meaningful evidence.

**Important nuance:** The evidence shows this effect is moderated by usage patterns, task stakes, and user confidence. Heavy or uncritical use drives the decline, not all AI usage universally. For high-stakes tasks, workers may actually engage *more* critically when using AI. The proof documents this qualification.

## Evidence Summary

| ID | Fact | Verified |
|----|------|----------|
| B1 | Gerlich (2025): Negative correlation (r=-0.68) between AI usage and critical thinking scores in 666 participants | Yes |
| B2 | Lee et al. (2025, CHI): Higher confidence in GenAI associated with less critical thinking in 319 knowledge workers | Yes |
| B3 | Harvard Gazette (2025): Harvard faculty experts warn AI use undercuts critical thinking | Yes |
| B4 | Jose et al. (2025, PMC): ChatGPT users scored 17% lower on concept understanding despite solving 48% more problems | Yes |
| A1 | Verified source count meets threshold | Computed: 4 independently verified sources confirm the claim (threshold: 3) |

## Proof Logic

The proof follows a qualitative consensus approach. Four independent sources were identified, each addressing different facets of AI's impact on critical thinking:

1. **Gerlich (2025)** conducted a mixed-method study with 666 UK participants, finding that frequent AI tool users "performed worse on critical thinking assessments compared to those who used these tools less frequently" (B1). The study identified cognitive offloading — delegating mental effort to AI — as the key mediating mechanism (r = +0.72 between AI usage and cognitive offloading, r = -0.75 between cognitive offloading and critical thinking).

2. **Lee et al. (2025)** at Microsoft Research surveyed 319 knowledge workers who shared 936 first-hand examples of GenAI use. They found that "higher confidence in GenAI is associated with less critical thinking" (B2), and that GenAI shifts critical thinking from deep reasoning toward surface-level verification and response integration.

3. **Harvard faculty experts** (2025) across philosophy, education, physics, and literature expressed concern about AI's cognitive effects. Jeff Behrends stated he is "very worried about the effects of general-use LLMs on critical reasoning skills" (B3). Christopher Dede warned that "if AI is doing your thinking for you...that is undercutting your critical thinking."

4. **Jose et al. (2025)** in a PMC-published review documented the "cognitive paradox" of AI: while AI can boost task performance, "excessive reliance may reduce cognitive engagement and long-term retention" (B4). They cite a University of Pennsylvania study where ChatGPT users answered 48% more problems correctly but scored 17% lower on concept understanding tests.

All 4 citations were verified against their live source pages (A1). The sources are from independent institutions — SBS Swiss Business School, Microsoft Research, Harvard University, and Indian universities via PMC/Frontiers — with no shared authors or datasets.

## Counter-Evidence Search

**Do any studies show AI tools IMPROVE critical thinking?** AI-powered classrooms can improve learning outcomes by 23-35% in STEM disciplines, and Stanford research showed 15% higher scores for students using AI platforms. However, these gains are in knowledge acquisition and task performance, not in independent critical thinking. The PMC paper itself captures this paradox: more problems solved, but less conceptual understanding.

**Are the effects task-dependent rather than universal?** Yes. The Lee et al. study found workers apply MORE critical thinking for high-stakes tasks with AI, but LESS for routine tasks. This moderates but does not negate the overall finding — routine tasks constitute a large share of knowledge work, and the pattern of reduced engagement persists across most studies.

**Has the Gerlich (2025) study been retracted?** A minor correction was published (September 2025) for a duplicated table. The scientific conclusions were unaffected.

## Conclusion

**Verdict: PROVED.** Four independent sources from different institutions and research traditions confirm that AI tool usage is associated with diminished critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. The evidence converges on a common mechanism: cognitive offloading — when humans delegate mental effort to AI tools, they engage less deeply with information, reducing the practice of critical reasoning skills over time.

The proof carries an important qualification: this effect is not universal. It is strongest with heavy, uncritical use of AI tools, particularly for routine tasks. Users who maintain high self-confidence in their own abilities and approach AI outputs skeptically show less cognitive decline. The evidence supports the claim as a general pattern while acknowledging meaningful moderating factors.

Note: 2 citation(s) come from unclassified or low-credibility-tier sources (PsyPost, Microsoft.com). See Source Credibility Assessment in the audit trail. Both are reporting on peer-reviewed research published in established venues (MDPI Societies; ACM CHI 2025).

---

Generated by [proof-engine](https://github.com/yaniv-golan/proof-engine) v1.2.0 on 2026-03-29.
