Generative AI (GenAI) tools offer increasing opportunities for augmenting human cognitive tasks. Among these tasks, information seeking is being rapidly reshaped by GenAI tools, with potentially...
Learning by Chatting? Investigating the Impact of Generative AI on Information Seeking and Learning
Generative AI (GenAI) tools offer increasing opportunities for augmenting human cognitive tasks. Among these tasks, information seeking is being rapidly reshaped by GenAI tools, with potentially profound implications for learning and knowledge acquisition. To investigate these implications, we conducted a between-subjects field experiment in which participants pursued informal learning by seeking information through either ChatGPT or Google Search over a span of 8 days. Using a daily diary protocol, we gathered in-situ data on their information-seeking processes. Our findings show that participants in the ChatGPT group experienced diminished agency in their information-seeking processes, as they offloaded much of the information selection to AI, and consequently experienced greater meta-cognitive load arising from this reduced sense of control. We further highlight two sources of distortion in information access when using ChatGPT: biases in ChatGPT outputs, particularly towards providing solution-oriented artifacts over principled knowledge; and systematic shifts in users' information-seeking behaviors, whereby the conversational and socially-oriented interaction paradigm of current GenAI tools may inadvertently reduce exploration of the broader knowledge space. As a result, on average, participants in the ChatGPT group had worse learning outcomes than those using Google, especially for higher-order critical learning. Our work suggests inherent tensions between offloading information seeking to AI and meaningful learning, and provides broader implications for understanding AI's risks to human cognition.
The ChatGPT effect: In 3 years the AI chatbot has changed the way people look things up
ChatGPT has dramatically altered how people retrieve information, muscling aside Google search as the first stop on the hunt for answers.
The ChatGPT effect: In 3 years the AI chatbot has changed the way people look things up
ChatGPT has dramatically altered how people retrieve information, muscling aside Google search as the first stop on the hunt for answers.
Generative AI Meets Open-Ended Survey Responses: Research Participant Use of AI and Homogenization
The growing popularity of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools presents new challenges for data quality in online surveys and experiments. This study examines participants’ use of large language models to answer open-ended survey questions and describes empirical tendencies in human versus large language model (LLM)-generated text responses. In an original survey of research participants recruited from a popular online platform for sourcing social science research subjects, 34 percent reported using LLMs to help them answer open-ended survey questions. Simulations comparing human-written responses from three pre-ChatGPT studies with LLM-generated text reveal that LLM responses are more homogeneous and positive, particularly when they describe social groups in sensitive questions. These homogenization patterns may mask important underlying social variation in attitudes and beliefs among human subjects, raising concerns about data validity. Our findings shed light on the scope and potential consequences of participants’ LLM use in online research.
ChatGPT as a cognitive crutch: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial on knowledge retention
The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence into higher education has outpaced empirical understanding of its effects on fundamental learning processes. To address this gap, this randomized controlled trial (n = 120) tested ChatGPT's impact on long-term knowledge retention in undergraduates learning AI. Participants were randomly assigned either to use ChatGPT as a study aid (AI-Assisted Group) or to use only traditional, non-AI study methods (traditional learning group). Knowledge retention was assessed with a surprise test 45 days after learning. Students who used ChatGPT scored significantly lower on the retention test (57.5 % correct) compared to those who studied traditionally (68.5 % correct), t (83) = −3.19, p = .002, Cohen's d = 0.68. This suggests that unrestricted ChatGPT use impaired long-term retention, likely by reducing the cognitive effort that supports durable memory. The findings align with cognitive offloading theory and the ‘desirable difficulties’ principle: while AI assistance may ease initial learning, it appears to undermine the effortful processes needed for robust learning. These results have important implications for how generative AI tools should be integrated into higher education.
How People Use ChatGPT
Despite the rapid adoption of LLM chatbots, little is known about how they are used. We document the growth of ChatGPT’s consumer product from its launch in November 2022 through July 2025, when it had been adopted by around 10% of the world’s adult population. Early adopters were disproportionately male but the gender gap has narrowed dramatically, and we find higher growth rates in lower-income countries. Using a privacy-preserving automated pipeline, we classify usage patterns within a representative sample of ChatGPT conversations. We find steady growth in work-related messages but even faster growth in non-work-related messages, which have grown from 53% to more than 70% of all usage. Work usage is more common for educated users in highly-paid professional occupations. We classify messages by conversation topic and find that “Practical Guidance,” “Seeking Information,” and “Writing” are the three most common topics and collectively account for nearly 80% of all conversations. Writing dominates work-related tasks, highlighting chatbots’ unique ability to generate digital outputs compared to traditional search engines. Computer programming and self-expression both represent relatively small shares of use. Overall, we find that ChatGPT provides economic value through decision support, which is especially important in knowledge-intensive jobs.
AI-generated responses are undermining crowdsourced research studies
Many answers to online research questions show signs of being generated by AI chatbots, raising doubts about the validity of behavioural data collected this way
ChatGPT vs. Google検索──どっちで調べるのが学習効果が高い？ 8日間の実験で検証した研究
米ジョージア工科大学やミシガン大学などに所属する研究者らが発表した論文「Learning by Chatting? Investigating the Impact of Generative AI on Information Seeking and Learning」は、AIチャットbotと検索エンジンではどちらが学習効果が高いかを検証した研究報告だ。
Can ChatGPT Be Addictive? A Call to Examine the Shift from Support to Dependence in AI Conversational Large Language Models
The rapid rise of ChatGPT has introduced a transformative tool that enhances productivity, communication, and task automation across industries. However, concerns are emerging regarding the addictive potential of AI large language models. This paper explores how ChatGPT fosters dependency through key features such as personalised responses, emotional validation, and continuous engagement. By offering instant gratification and adaptive dialogue, ChatGPT may blur the line between AI and human interaction, creating pseudosocial bonds that can replace genuine human relationships. Additionally, its ability to streamline decision-making and boost productivity may lead to over-reliance, reducing users' critical thinking skills and contributing to compulsive usage patterns. These behavioural tendencies align with known features of addiction, such as increased tolerance and conflict with daily life priorities. This viewpoint paper highlights the need for further research into the psychological and social impacts of prolonged interaction with AI tools like ChatGPT.
ChatGPT acts as a "cognitive crutch" that weakens memory, new research suggests
A recent experiment provides evidence that relying on artificial intelligence to study tends to reduce how much information students remember weeks later.
Talking with strangers is surprisingly informative
A meaningful amount of people’s knowledge comes from their conversations with others. The amount people expect to learn predicts their interest in having a conversation (pretests 1 and 2), suggesting that the presumed information value of conversations guides decisions of whom to talk with. The results of seven experiments, however, suggest that people may systematically underestimate the informational benefit of conversation, creating a barrier to talking with—and hence learning from—others in daily life. Participants who were asked to talk with another person expected to learn significantly less from the conversation than they actually reported learning afterward, regardless of whether they had conversation prompts and whether they had the goal to learn (experiments 1 and 2). Undervaluing conversation does not stem from having systematically poor opinions of how much others know (experiment 3) but is instead related to the inherent uncertainty involved in conversation itself. Consequently, people underestimate learning to a lesser extent when uncertainty is reduced, as in a nonsocial context (surfing the web, experiment 4); when talking to an acquainted conversation partner (experiment 5); and after knowing the content of the conversation (experiment 6). Underestimating learning in conversation is distinct from underestimating other positive qualities in conversation, such as enjoyment (experiment 7). Misunderstanding how much can be learned in conversation could keep people from learning from others in daily life.
AI makes you smarter but none the wiser: The disconnect between performance and metacognition
Optimizing human–AI interaction requires users to reflect on their performance critically, yet little is known about generative AI systems’ effect on users’ metacognitive judgments. In two large-scale studies, we investigate how AI usage is associated with users’ metacognitive monitoring and performance in logical reasoning tasks. Specifically, our paper examines whether people using AI to complete tasks can accurately monitor how well they perform. In Study 1, participants (N = 246) used AI to solve 20 logical reasoning problems from the Law School Admission Test. While their task performance improved by three points compared to a norm population, participants overestimated their task performance by four points. Interestingly, higher AI literacy correlated with lower metacognitive accuracy, suggesting that those with more technical knowledge of AI were more confident but less precise in judging their own performance. Using a computational model, we explored individual differences in metacognitive accuracy and found that the Dunning–Kruger effect, usually observed in this task, ceased to exist with AI use. Study 2 (N = 452) replicates these findings. We discuss how AI levels cognitive and metacognitive performance in human–AI interaction and consider the consequences of performance overestimation for designing interactive AI systems that foster accurate self-monitoring, avoid overreliance, and enhance cognitive performance.
Just Asking Questions: Doing Our Own Research on Conspiratorial Ideation by Generative AI Chatbots
Interactive chat systems that build on artificial intelligence frameworks are increasingly ubiquitous and embedded into search engines, Web browsers, and operating systems, or are available on websites and apps. Researcher efforts have sought to understand the limitations and potential for harm of generative AI, which we contribute to here. Conducting a systematic review of six AI-powered chat systems (ChatGPT 3.5; ChatGPT 4 Mini; Microsoft Copilot in Bing; Google Search AI; Perplexity; and Grok in Twitter/X), this study examines how these leading products respond to questions related to conspiracy theories. This follows the platform policy implementation audit approach established by Glazunova et al. (2023). We select five well-known and comprehensively debunked conspiracy theories and four emerging conspiracy theories that relate to breaking news events at the time of data collection. Our findings demonstrate that the extent of safety guardrails against conspiratorial ideation in generative AI chatbots differs markedly, depending on chatbot model and conspiracy theory. Our observations indicate that safety guardrails in AI chatbots are often very selectively designed: generative AI companies appear to focus especially on ensuring that their products are not seen to be racist; they also appear to pay particular attention to conspiracy theories that address topics of substantial national trauma such as 9/11 or relate to well-established political issues. Future work should include an ongoing effort extended to further platforms, multiple languages, and a range of conspiracy theories extending well beyond the United States.
Just Asking Questions: Doing Our Own Research on Conspiratorial Ideation by Generative AI Chatbots
Interactive chat systems that build on artificial intelligence frameworks are increasingly ubiquitous and embedded into search engines, Web browsers, and operating systems, or are available on websites and apps. Researcher efforts have sought to understand the limitations and potential for harm of generative AI, which we contribute to here. Conducting a systematic review of six AI-powered chat systems (ChatGPT 3.5; ChatGPT 4 Mini; Microsoft Copilot in Bing; Google Search AI; Perplexity; and Grok in Twitter/X), this study examines how these leading products respond to questions related to conspiracy theories. This follows the platform policy implementation audit approach established by Glazunova et al. (2023). We select five well-known and comprehensively debunked conspiracy theories and four emerging conspiracy theories that relate to breaking news events at the time of data collection. Our findings demonstrate that the extent of safety guardrails against conspiratorial ideation in generative AI chatbots differs markedly, depending on chatbot model and conspiracy theory. Our observations indicate that safety guardrails in AI chatbots are often very selectively designed: generative AI companies appear to focus especially on ensuring that their products are not seen to be racist; they also appear to pay particular attention to conspiracy theories that address topics of substantial national trauma such as 9/11 or relate to well-established political issues. Future work should include an ongoing effort extended to further platforms, multiple languages, and a range of conspiracy theories extending well beyond the United States.
OpenAI’s Sam Altman on Building the ‘Core AI Subscription’ for Your Life
When Using AI, Users Fall for the Dunning-Kruger Trap in Reverse - Neuroscience News
A new study reveals that when interacting with AI tools like ChatGPT, everyone—regardless of skill level—overestimates their performance.
