“ChatGPT makes you stupid,” “AI damages your brain,” “MIT study: artificial intelligence causes cognitive decline.” In recent months, alarmist headlines like these have dominated the mainstream media, fueling unfounded fears about the use of artificial intelligence in education and work. But what does the science really say? A critical analysis of the literature reveals a much more complex and, above all, more optimistic reality.

The MIT Media Lab study “Your Brain on ChatGPT” sparked a wave of alarmist media coverage, often based on distorted interpretations of the results. Published as a preprint (i.e., not peer-reviewed), the study involved just 54 participants from the Boston area, with only 18 completing the crucial session.

Inadequate sample: With 54 participants in total, the study lacks the statistical power necessary to draw generalizable conclusions. As the researchers themselves admit, “the sample is small” and “homogeneous: people in the vicinity of MIT certainly do not reflect the distribution of people in the world.”

Problematic experimental design: Participants had to write SAT essays in just 20 minutes—an artificial constraint that naturally pushes toward copy-pasting rather than thoughtful integration. This design “well mimics natural real-life constraints” such as “the deadline is tomorrow” or “I'd rather play video games,” but it does not represent a pedagogically informed use of AI.

Confounding of the familiarization effect: The “brain-only” group showed progressive improvement in the first three sessions simply by becoming more familiar with the task. When the AI group had to write without assistance in the fourth session, it was tackling the task for the first time without the benefit of practice.

While the media focused on the alarmist findings from MIT, much more rigorous research was producing radically different results.

Research conducted at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology followed 125 university students in a randomized controlled design for a full semester. The results directly contradict the conclusions of MIT:

Critical Thinking: Students using ChatGPT improved from 28.4 to 39.2 points (+38%), significantly outperforming the control group (from 24.9 to 30.6, +23%).

Creative Thinking: Even more dramatic increases, from 57.2 to 92.0 points (+61%) for the ChatGPT group, with improvements in all six dimensions measured: courage, innovative inquiry, curiosity, self-discipline, doubt, and flexibility.

Reflective Thinking: Substantial improvements from 35.1 to 56.6 points (+61%), indicating greater capacity for self-reflection and metacognition.

Crucial methodological differences: The Ghana study used validated scales (Cronbach α > 0.89), confirmatory factor analysis, ANCOVA controls for pretest scores, and—crucially—integrated ChatGPT into a real educational context with appropriate pedagogical scaffolding.

The most rigorous study available involved 758 consultants from the Boston Consulting Group in a pre-registered, controlled experiment. The results were unequivocal:

As Ethan Mollick, co-author of the study, points out: “Consultants who used ChatGPT outperformed those who did not, by a wide margin. On every dimension. In every way we measured performance.”

A systematic review of research on AI in higher education identified consistent benefits:

A multinational study of 401 Chinese university students using structural equation modeling confirmed that “both AI and social media have a positive impact on academic performance and mental well-being.”

Media coverage of the MIT study is a prime example of how sensationalism can distort the public's understanding of science.

Typical headline: “MIT study shows ChatGPT makes you stupid.”

Reality: Preliminary, non-peer-reviewed study with 54 participants finds differences in neural connectivity in artificial tasks.

Typical headline: “AI damages the brain.”

Reality: EEG shows different activation patterns, interpretable as neural efficiency rather than damage.

Typical headline: “ChatGPT causes cognitive decline”

Reality: A study with serious methodological limitations contradicted by more rigorous research.

MIT lead researcher Nataliya Kosmyna admitted to inserting “traps” into the paper to prevent LLMs from summarizing it accurately. Ironically, many social media users then used LLMs to summarize and share the study, inadvertently demonstrating the practical usefulness of these tools.

Serious research on AI in education does not deny the existence of challenges, but frames them in a more sophisticated way. The Harvard study's concept of the “jagged technological frontier” illustrates that AI excels at some tasks while it can be problematic at others that are seemingly similar.

Timing of introduction: Evidence suggests that developing basic skills before introducing AI can maximize benefits. As the MIT study itself notes, “Brain-to-LLM participants showed superior memory recall and activation of occipito-parietal and prefrontal areas.”

Pedagogical design: The Ghana study demonstrates the importance of integrating AI with appropriate educational scaffolding, well-designed prompts, and clear learning objectives.

Meaningful context: Using AI in real educational contexts, rather than artificial tasks, produces dramatically different results.

Distorted media coverage is not just an academic problem—it has real consequences for the adoption of potentially beneficial technologies.

As Kosmyna herself admits: “What motivated me to publish this now before waiting for a full peer review is that I'm afraid that in 6-8 months, there will be some policy maker who decides ‘let's do GPT kindergarten’. I think that would be absolutely negative and harmful.”

This statement reveals an advocacy motivation that should raise red flags about the scientific neutrality of the research.

A survey of 28,698 software engineers showed that only 41% had tried AI tools, with even lower adoption among women (31%) and engineers over 40 (39%). Alarmist headlines contribute to these biases, potentially depriving many workers of the proven benefits of AI.

AI companies must balance enthusiasm for the technology with honest communication about its limitations. Serious research findings suggest real benefits when AI is implemented thoughtfully, but also the need for:

Instead of reacting defensively to negative headlines, the AI industry should:

The story of the MIT study and its media coverage offers important lessons for all stakeholders in the AI ecosystem.

The pressure to publish “newsworthy” results should not compromise methodological rigor. Preprints can be useful for scientific debate, but require careful communication about their limitations.

The public deserves accurate coverage that distinguishes between:

The future of AI in education depends on thoughtful implementations based on robust evidence, not reactions to the latest sensational headlines.

While debate rages in the headlines, serious research is revealing AI's true potential to democratize access to high-quality learning experiences. The Ghana study shows that when implemented appropriately, AI can:

The question is not whether AI will transform education, but how we can responsibly guide that transformation. The answer lies in rigorous science, not sensational headlines.

Sources and References:

To stay up to date on serious scientific research on AI (without sensationalism), follow our company blog and subscribe to our newsletter.

Welcome to Electe’s Newsletter - English

This newsletter explores the fascinating world of how companies are using AI to change the way they work. It shares interesting stories and discoveries about artificial intelligence in business - like how companies are using AI to make smarter decisions, what new AI tools are emerging, and how these changes affect our everyday lives.

You don't need to be a tech expert to enjoy it - it's written for anyone curious about how AI is shaping the future of business and work. Whether you're interested in learning about the latest AI breakthroughs, understanding how companies are becoming more innovative, or just want to stay informed about tech trends, this newsletter breaks it all down in an engaging, easy-to-understand way.

It's like having a friendly guide who keeps you in the loop about the most interesting developments in business technology, without getting too technical or complicated.

Subscribe to get full access to the newsletter and publication archives.