AI as a Cognitive Assistant or Cognitive Substitute? The Case for Human-Centred AI Use
Artificial intelligence tends to attract extreme opinions. Some commentators argue it is eroding our capacity to think. Others believe it is freeing our minds for more valuable work. Both views miss the more important point: the effect of AI depends on how a person chooses to use it. Whether a chatbot supports someone's thinking or replaces it altogether comes down to that choice, and that choice is what separates an assistant from a substitute. Not long ago, generative AI was a novelty. Now it shows up daily in classrooms, newsrooms and offices - almost everywhere people write, plan or make decisions. That kind of shift is exactly why researchers have started looking closely at something harder to see: what happens inside the brain once thinking gets outsourced to a machine. The findings are worth knowing.
What the Brain Scans Actually Showed
One of the clearest pieces of evidence comes out of MIT's Media Lab. The study by Nataliya Kosmyna was carried out for 4 months in 2025 with the participation of all in all, there were 54 participants The fifty four participants were divided into three groups and assigned each group one unique but identical writing task. Group one wrote with ChatGPT open in front of them. The second used a standard search engine. The third had access to nothing but their own knowledge. Throughout, an Electroencephalogram (EEG device) sat on every participant's head, feeding the research team a live picture of brain activity as the essays took shape. It did not take long for the ChatGPT group's readings to pull away from the other two. Activity in regions linked to memory and analytical reasoning dropped noticeably. Several participants struggled later to recall, or even accurately quote, essays they had written only minutes before. Kosmyna's team gave this effect a name: cognitive debt, borrowed from the language of personal finance. The convenience arrives immediately; the cost turns up afterwards, in this case as weakened memory and independent reasoning.
A less-reported result from the same study points the other way. Participants who started the task unaided, then moved on to using ChatGPT, showed higher brain activity than before, not lower. That detail matters. It indicates the tool itself is not the problem. What seems to matter more is the mental effort a person has already put in before turning to AI for help.
Assistant or Substitute? The Line Is Thinner Than You Think
A study published in Frontiers in Psychology in July 2026 offers a useful distinction that extends the MIT findings. The researchers differentiate between dependent offloading, where a task is handed over because a person doubts their own ability to complete it, and autonomous offloading, where a person chooses to delegate part of a task while remaining in control of the overall process.
Dependent offloading, according to the study, gradually undermines a person's sense of competence, since it signals, even quietly, that they cannot manage without help. Autonomous offloading works differently. Here, too, the scientists are relieved to discover that giving a wide birth to any 'hardest' decisions-just taking AI's assistance where it can make an honest contribution-boosts rather than damages the confidence. The same holds for creative output too. The tool does not change between these two scenarios. What changes is who remains in charge of the process.
The Cost Nobody Is Measuring at Work
This pattern is not confined to academic settings. Earlier, in August 2026 the Conversation collated workplace data which brings up similar issues. Around six out of 10 workers don’t receive formal training on using AI and the same number say they have used artificial intelligence irresponsibly (or covertly) as part of their work.
A separate finding, from a July 2026 study by the Centre for AI Safety, adds further weight to this concern. Even the most capable AI agents tested were unable to complete around 85 per cent of assigned projects to a standard fit for paid, professional work. Put next to the workplace training gap, these numbers point to something organisations cannot really ignore. Many employees are trusting output from tools they were never taught to question, built by systems that make more mistakes than most people give them credit for. That is not a case for banning AI at work. It does mean employees need a clearer sense of where these tools are likely to fail, and the training to recognise it when they do.
Building the Habit of Human-Centred AI Use
Translating this research into practice requires a few deliberate habits.
Think before you prompt:Structuring an argument or outline before opening an AI tool matters more than it might seem. Even five minutes of this kind of preparation involves exactly the mental effort that the MIT study found missing in its heaviest AI users.
Treat AI output as a starting point:Whatever output an AI tool provides should be treated as a rough sketch to work on and not a finished product. Facts need checking. Awkward sentences need rewriting in your own words. At the end of the day, the person whose name goes on the piece is the one who answers for what is in it — which by itself is enough reason to go through it carefully before it is sent out.
Preserve AI-free time:A few hours each week, kept free of AI tools entirely, gives planning and brainstorming room to happen without shortcuts. Teams that build this into their schedule, rather than compressing every stage of a project with AI, generally produce stronger work as a result.
Examine the motivation:Using AI to move through an idea faster is one thing. Using it to dodge thinking about a problem altogether is something else. The second habit tends to catch up with people later, often without their noticing at first.
Conclusion
Whether AI functions as a cognitive assistant or a cognitive substitute depends less on the technology itself and more upon the way it is used. Used to support one's own thinking, AI appears to strengthen cognitive engagement. Used as a substitute for effort, it appears to accumulate a quiet cost, one that eventually surfaces in memory, confidence and the overall quality of work produced. The relevant question, each time AI is used, is a straightforward one: is it being used to assist thinking, or to replace it?
References
2. Chow, A. (2025) 'ChatGPT's Impact On Our Brains According to an MIT Study', TIME
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
Amid reports of heavy rainfall and flooding in several cities of the United Arab Emirates, a video is being widely circulated on social media claiming to show recent scenes from Dubai. The clip allegedly depicts severe waterlogging at Dubai Airport and inside shopping malls, with users linking it to a “recent storm.”According to research by CyberPeace, the viral footage is not recent. The video is actually a compilation of three different clips stitched together and dates back to 2024, when Dubai experienced unprecedented flooding following heavy rains.
Claim
The misleading post was shared by an X (formerly Twitter) user named ‘Ruksar Khan’ on March 28, 2026, with a caption suggesting that Dubai had been submerged after just one day of rain. The post attempted to sensationalize the situation by portraying the visuals as current.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, keyframes from the viral video were extracted using the InVid tool and analyzed through reverse image search. One of the clips was traced to a Facebook post by “9 News,” uploaded on April 17, 2024. The video showed waterlogged runways at Dubai International Airport following intense rainfall and flooding.
Further verification led to a report published by Hindustan Times on April 17, 2024, which featured similar visuals and confirmed that the footage was from the floods that hit Dubai in 2024.
Conclusion:
The viral claim suggesting that the video shows recent flooding in Dubai is false. The footage is nearly two years old and originates from the 2024 floods in Dubai. It is now being reshared with misleading claims to create confusion around current weather events.
A report by MarketsandMarkets in 2024 showed that the global AI market size is estimated to grow from USD 214.6 billion in 2024 to USD 1,339.1 billion in 2030, at a CAGR of 35.7%. AI has become an enabler of productivity and innovation. A Forbes Advisor survey conducted in 2023 reported that 56% of businesses use AI to optimise their operations and drive efficiency. Further, 51% use AI for cybersecurity and fraud management, 47% employ AI-powered digital assistants to enhance productivity and 46% use AI to manage customer relationships.
AI has revolutionised business functions. According to a Forbes survey, 40% of businesses rely on AI for inventory management, 35% harness AI for content production and optimisation and 33% deploy AI-driven product recommendation systems for enhanced customer engagement. This blog addresses the opportunities and challenges posed by integrating AI into operational efficiency.
Artificial Intelligence and its resultant Operational Efficiency
AI has exemplary optimisation or efficiency capabilities and is widely used to do repetitive tasks. These tasks include payroll processing, data entry, inventory management, patient registration, invoicing, claims processing, and others. AI use has been incorporated into such tasks as it can uncover complex patterns using NLP, machine learning, and deep learning beyond human capabilities. It has also shown promise in improving the decision-making process for businesses in time-critical, high-pressure situations.
AI-driven efficiency is visible in industries such as the manufacturing industry for predictive maintenance, in the healthcare industry for streamlining diagnostics and in logistics for route optimisation. Some of the most common real-world examples of AI increasing operational efficiency are self-driving cars (Tesla), facial recognition (Apple Face ID), language translation (Google Translate), and medical diagnosis (IBM Watson Health)
Harnessing AI has advantages as it helps optimise the supply chain, extend product life cycles, and ultimately conserve resources and cut operational costs.
Policy Implications for AI Deployment
Some of the policy implications for development for AI deployment are as follows:
- Develop clear and adaptable regulatory frameworks for the ongoing and future developments in AI. The frameworks need to ensure that innovation is not hindered while managing the potential risks.
- As AI systems rely on high-quality data that is accessible and interoperable to function effectively and without proper data governance, these systems may produce results that are biased, inaccurate and unreliable. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure data privacy as it is essential to maintain trust and prevent harm to individuals and organisations.
- Policy developers need to focus on creating policies that upskill the workforce which complements AI development and therefore job displacement.
- To ensure cross-border applicability and efficiency of standardising AI policies, the policy-makers need to ensure that international cooperation is achieved when developing the policies.
Addressing Challenges and Risks
Some of the main challenges that emerge with the development of AI are algorithmic bias, cybersecurity threats and the dependence on exclusive AI solutions or where the company retains exclusive control over the source codes. Some policy approaches that can be taken to mitigate these challenges are:
- Having a robust accountability mechanism.
- Establishing identity and access management policies that have technical controls like authentication and authorisation mechanisms.
- Ensure that the learning data that AI systems use follows ethical considerations such as data privacy, fairness in decision-making, transparency, and the interpretability of AI models.
Conclusion
AI can contribute and provide opportunities to drive operational efficiency in businesses. It can be an optimiser for productivity and costs and foster innovation for different industries. But this power of AI comes with its own considerations and therefore, it must be balanced with proactive policies that address the challenges that emerge such as the need for data governance, algorithmic bias and risks associated with cybersecurity. A solution to overcome these challenges is establishing an adaptable regulatory framework, fostering workforce upskilling and promoting international collaborations. As businesses integrate AI into core functions, it becomes necessary to leverage its potential while safeguarding fairness, transparency, and trust. AI is not just an efficiency tool, it has become a stimulant for organisations operating in a rapidly evolving digital world.
References
- https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai-indian-businesses-long-term-gain-operational-efficiency-9717072/
- https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/artificial-intelligence-market-74851580.html
- https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2024/08/06/smart-automation-ais-impact-on-operational-efficiency/
- https://www.processexcellencenetwork.com/ai/articles/ai-operational-excellence
- https://www.leewayhertz.com/ai-for-operational-efficiency/
- https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2024/11/04/bringing-ai-to-the-enterprise-challenges-and-considerations/
Introduction
Misinformation in India has emerged as a significant societal challenge, wielding a potent influence on public perception, political discourse, and social dynamics. A potential number of first-time voters across India identified fake news as a real problem in the nation. With the widespread adoption of digital platforms, false narratives, manipulated content, and fake news have found fertile ground to spread unchecked information and news.
In the backdrop of India being the largest market of WhatsApp users, who forward more content on chats than anywhere else, the practice of fact-checking forwarded information continues to remain low. The heavy reliance on print media, television, unreliable news channels and primarily, social media platforms acts as a catalyst since studies reveal that most Indians trust any content forwarded by family and friends. It is noted that out of all risks, misinformation and disinformation ranked the highest in India, coming before infectious diseases, illicit economic activity, inequality and labour shortages. World Economic Forum analysts, in connection with their 2024 Global Risk Report, note that “misinformation and disinformation in electoral processes could seriously destabilise the real and perceived legitimacy of newly elected governments, risking political unrest, violence and terrorism and long-term erosion of democratic processes.”
The Supreme Court of India on Misinformation
The Supreme Court of India, through various judgements, has noted the impact of misinformation on democratic processes within the country, especially during elections and voting. In 1995, while adjudicating a matter pertaining to keeping the broadcasting media under the control of the public, it noted that democracy becomes a farce when the medium of information is monopolized either by partisan central authority or by private individuals or oligarchic organizations.
In 2003, the Court stated that “Right to participate by casting a vote at the time of election would be meaningless unless the voters are well informed about all sides of the issue in respect of which they are called upon to express their views by casting their votes. Disinformation, misinformation, non-information all equally create an uninformed citizenry which would finally make democracy a mobocracy and a farce.” It noted that elections would be a useless procedure if voters remained unaware of the antecedents of the candidates contesting elections. Thus, a necessary aspect of a voter’s duty to cast intelligent and rational votes is being well-informed. Such information forms one facet of the fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a) pertaining to freedom of speech and expression. Quoting James Madison, it stated that a citizen’s right to know the true facts about their country’s administration is one of the pillars of a democratic State.
On a similar note, the Supreme Court, while discussing the disclosure of information by an election candidate, gave weightage to the High Court of Bombay‘s opinion on the matter, which opined that non-disclosure of information resulted in misinformation and disinformation, thereby influencing voters to take uninformed decisions. It stated that a voter had the elementary right to know the full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament/Assemblies.
While misinformation was discussed primarily in relation to elections, the effects of misinformation in other sectors have also been discussed from time to time. In particular, The court highlighted the World Health Organisation’s observation in 2021 while discussing the spread of COVID-19, noting that the pandemic was not only an epidemic but also an “infodemic” due to the overabundance of information on the internet, which was riddled with misinformation and disinformation. While condemning governments’ direct or indirect threats of prosecution to citizens, it noted that various citizens who relied on the internet to provide help in securing medical facilities and oxygen tanks were being targeted by alleging that the information posted by them was false and was posted to create panic, defame the administration or damage national image. It instructed authorities to cease such threats and prevent clampdown on information sharing.
More recently, in Facebook v. Delhi Legislative Assembly [(2022) 3 SCC 529], the apex court, while upholding the summons issued to Facebook by the Delhi Legislative Assembly in the aftermath of the 2020 Delhi Riots, noted that while social media enables equal and open dialogue between citizens and policymakers, it is also a tool in the where extremist views are peddled into mainstream media, thereby spreading misinformation. It noted Facebook’s role in the Mynmar, where misinformation and posts that Facebook employees missed fueled offline violence. Since Facebook is one of the most popular social media applications, the platform itself acts as a power center by hosting various opinions and voices on its forum. This directly impacts the governance of States, and some form of liability must be attached to the platform. The Supreme Court objected to Facebook taking contrary stands in various jurisdictions; while in the US, it projected itself as a publisher, which enabled it to maintain control over the material disseminated from its platform, while in India, “it has chosen to identify itself purely as a social media platform, despite its similar functions and services in the two countries.”
Conclusion
The pervasive issue of misinformation in India is a multifaceted challenge with profound implications for democratic processes, public awareness, and social harmony. The alarming statistics of fake news recognition among first-time voters, coupled with a lack of awareness regarding fact-checking organizations, underscore the urgency of addressing this issue. The Supreme Court of India has consistently recognized the detrimental impact of misinformation, particularly in elections. The judiciary has stressed the pivotal role of an informed citizenry in upholding the essence of democracy. It has emphasized the right to access accurate information as a fundamental aspect of freedom of speech and expression. As India grapples with the challenges of misinformation, the intersection of technology, media literacy and legal frameworks will be crucial in mitigating the adverse effects and fostering a more resilient and informed society.
References
- https://thewire.in/media/survey-finds-false-information-risk-highest-in-india
- https://www.statista.com/topics/5846/fake-news-in-india/#topicOverview
- https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/digest/
- https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/20428/20428_2020_37_1501_28386_Judgement_08-Jul-2021.pdf
- Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt, of India and Others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Another [(1995) 2 SCC 161]
- People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 399]
- Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant and Others [(2014) 14 SCC 162]
- Distribution of Essential Supplies & Services During Pandemic, In re [(2021) 18 SCC 201]
- Facebook v. Delhi Legislative Assembly [(2022) 3 SCC 529]
