Is AI Making Us More Robotic?

As artificial intelligence becomes embedded in work, education, research, and personal life, researchers are examining whether the technology strengthens human abilities or encourages people to surrender too much thinking, writing, and decision-making to machines.

Cultural strategist Gautami Reddy recently published an illustrated guide in The Hindu Sunday Magazine recommending distinctly human activities—including reading slowly, tolerating boredom, creating imperfect things, questioning information, and spending time with others. Reddy described the work as her guide to living in the age of AI in posts on LinkedIn and Instagram.

AI Is Becoming an Everyday Tool

AI chatbots have moved rapidly into the mainstream. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in February found that 49% of American adults use chatbots, up from 33% in 2024. Approximately 24% use them daily, including 4% who said they use them almost constantly.

ChatGPT remains the leading product. The share of American adults who have used it increased from 18% in 2023 to 44% in 2026.

The technology can deliver measurable benefits. A National Bureau of Economic Research study, involving data from roughly 5,172–5,179 customer-support agents, found that access to a generative AI conversational assistant increased productivity—measured as issues resolved per hour—by approximately 14% (figures in the literature range from 13.8% to about 15% across versions). The largest gains occurred among less-experienced and lower-skilled workers.

A separate field experiment involving 758 Boston Consulting Group consultants found that those using GPT-4 completed tasks approximately 25% faster and produced results rated more than 40% higher in quality on assignments within the technology’s capabilities, according to the Harvard Business School–led research (“Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier”). Consultants using AI were also more likely to submit incorrect answers on a task deliberately chosen to lie outside the technology’s capabilities.

Efficiency Can Replace Mental Effort

A 2025 study from Microsoft Research and Carnegie Mellon University surveyed 319 knowledge workers and examined 936 examples of generative AI use.

Higher confidence in AI was associated with less critical thinking, while higher self-confidence in one’s own abilities was associated with more scrutiny of AI-generated material. The findings are based on self-reported experiences and do not establish that AI use causes a long-term decline in cognitive ability. Researchers nevertheless identified a possible risk of overreliance, particularly when workers accept machine-generated material without independently examining it.

AI also changed where workers directed their mental effort. Instead of gathering information and producing an answer entirely on their own, participants increasingly focused on verifying AI output, integrating it into their work, and supervising the final product.

Previous Dallas Express coverage examined similar concerns as Dallas schools expanded AI-assisted writing feedback and grading. Another Dallas Express report addressed the relationship among short-form content, AI-generated material, reading, and independent reasoning.

Is Returning to Pre-AI Life the Answer?

Perhaps the more consequential question is which parts of a task people should delegate to AI.

One approach is to complete the first stage without AI. A student can outline an argument before requesting feedback. A writer can determine the central idea before asking a chatbot to locate gaps. A worker can form an initial conclusion before asking AI to present contrary evidence.

Users can also instruct AI to ask questions rather than immediately provide answers. OpenAI’s study mode follows that model by guiding users through problems step by step. Similar prompts can direct a chatbot to challenge assumptions, identify missing evidence, or present the strongest opposing argument.

UNESCO’s guidance on generative AI in education and research (first issued in 2023 and repeatedly referenced in subsequent frameworks and updates) states that generative AI can challenge and extend human thinking but should not displace it. The organization’s educational approach prioritizes human agency, critical thinking, privacy, transparency, and accountability.

Verification Protects Independent Judgment

AI-generated statements should not be treated as original sources. Users can request supporting links, but they should open those links, confirm that they exist, and determine whether they support the claims presented.

Verification can include checking government records, original studies, court documents, company filings, and direct statements from the people involved. Users should also distinguish peer-reviewed findings from unpublished studies, company research, opinion surveys, and anecdotal reports.

Such scrutiny becomes especially important when AI addresses medicine, law, finance, elections, or breaking news. Grammatically polished language does not guarantee that the underlying information is complete or accurate.

Preserving Human Responsibility

Reddy’s recommendations—including eating together, calling grandparents, memorizing poetry, making imperfect objects, accepting boredom, and resisting pressure for instant responses—focus on activities that involve sustained attention, memory, creativity, emotion, and personal relationships.

These practices do not require rejecting technology. Instead, they preserve human participation while AI handles selected tasks.

The available research presents a mixed picture: AI can increase speed, expand access to information, and help inexperienced workers perform more effectively. It can also produce incorrect answers, encourage uniform output, and reduce mental effort when users accept its responses without scrutiny.

Current research and guidance point toward using AI for assistance while retaining human responsibility for purpose, judgment, verification, personal expression, relationships, and the final product.

The concern has been summarized in a widely shared 2024 post from author Joanna Maciejewska: “I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.”