Working professionals, teachers, clinicians, and writers frequently describe their AI experiences through two common metaphors that represent AI as both a powerful tool and a time-saving solution. But there are the doom and gloom sayers. We need to consider all of our options and opportunities.

People experience AI as a superpower through its ability to generate quick drafts and excellent summaries while processing data within short periods. People experience discomfort when they use AI tools because these systems create distance between them and their natural judgment abilities, memory functions, and speaking voice. Of course, there’s a natural concern here.

The MIT Warning: “Cognitive Debt”

A June 2025 study from MIT Media Lab demonstrates the existing conflict between human work and artificial intelligence. The researchers conducted an essay-writing test using EEG brain scans to evaluate three participant groups who wrote with the assistance of an LLM and two control groups who used search engines and wrote without assistance.

The LLM users demonstrated the lowest level of neural connection in their brain activity. Users who relied heavily on AI for writing experienced decreased linguistic performance, reduced engagement, and memory problems when they returned to writing without AI assistance. That study certainly didn’t mitigate the concerns about the use of LLMs and raised further concerns.

Workplace AI Implementation Leads to Enhanced Productivity Rates

When people lose mental strength and memory recall because they rely too much on convenient solutions, the environment of a call center reveals a contrasting reality from what we see in other settings. Published research demonstrated that AI assistants boosted support agent productivity by 14% primarily benefiting entry-level workers in call centers.

The authors noted in their study that AI tools functioned as productivity boosters which reduced skill differences between experienced and inexperienced users.

The UK government tested Microsoft’s Copilot tool in its civil service, and employees reported saving 26 minutes daily on average. This time recovery amounts to two weeks of administrative work per year. A saving of that magnitude would appear to be significant.

Education: Tutor or Crutch?

The field of education represents the most intense point where positive and negative perspectives about AI systems face each other.

Research conducted in 2025 demonstrated that AI tutoring systems yielded superior results compared to traditional classroom instruction for college students, particularly through individualized teaching methods. We should consider that specific AI programs can assist students in seeing where errors lie and provide appropriate solutions for them. This is the true essence of a mentor.

When we turn to healthcare, the results from limited studies provide us with little guidance. Available evidence for AI health-profession training shows limited long-term results despite positive initial findings from systematic reviews. But we should not jump to conclusions here. The research shows promising results, yet the number of studies remains insufficient to confirm the findings.

The Main Concerns

1. De-skilling and Offloading

Researcher discovered that people who use AI tools extensively show reduced critical thinking abilities and they tend to offload their mental work to the system. The problem extends beyond laziness because it leads to a progressive loss of mental autonomy. Do we want to lose our “minds” to AI or continue to work with it?

2. Accuracy and Integrity

The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recommends that organizations create an AI Risk Management for risk identification and mitigation before system deployment. The UNESCO Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research supports this stance by emphasizing that AI systems should maintain a human focus while maintaining transparency.

3. Misinformation and Harm

UNESCO issued a warning that uncontrolled generative AI systems could spread revisionist or denialist content unless proper governance measures are implemented. The problem exists in reality because false information that sounds natural continues to outpace traditional fact-checking methods. The recommendations are sound, but the issues of implementation and who is best suited to formulate them remain to be decided.

The Main Benefits

1. Speed and Relief from Drudgery

AI demonstrates its peak performance in three main areas, which include summarizing content, drafting documents, and formatting information. Research indicates that new employees and employees with limited time benefit the most from AI implementation.

2. Skill Scaffolding

The use of AI as a coaching tool, rather than a dependency tool, produces remarkable results. Research has demonstrated that students who received AI-assisted tutoring achieved better math understanding because the system both encouraged thinking and presented various solution methods. If there is one area that has presented difficulties for the larger group of students, it is in math. AI is an invaluable tool in this area.

3. Creativity Partner

Writers often view AI as a collaborative brainstorming tool that generates diverse perspectives, alternative viewpoints, and opposing ideas. The risk is homogenization.

AI drafts should be treated as work-in-progress material rather than final products to prevent homogenization. The area of writing, in particular, has been hotly debated as the software becomes more sophisticated and likely to produce extremely effective written communication.

4. Access and Equity

AI technology provides equal opportunities to users who are non-native speakers and individuals with disabilities, as well as teams with limited resources. UNESCO advocates for protecting this advantage while ensuring users’ data remains secure from exploitation. The question, of course, remains to be who will pay for the technology, and where will it be dispersed?

Organizations and individuals who create effective AI usage frameworks for skill development rather than replacement will achieve the best results from AI superpower capabilities, while maintaining human-driven innovation and meaningful work. The end of human work is not here, and we need to accept this as we accepted electricity at the beginning of the 20th century. We can no longer afford to be in the “horse and buggy” phase of computer algorithmic development.