Curiosity in the age of AI

Once upon a time, students wrestled with complex ideas, scribbled notes furiously, and debated concepts late into the night. Now, they simply ask ChatGPT. Need a summary of War and Peace? Done in seconds. A physics explanation? Instant clarity. But in this convenience lies a creeping dependence. Why struggle with a problem when AI can solve it effortlessly? The thrill of discovery, the joy of intellectual pursuit – slowly eroded by the seductive ease of machine-generated answers. If curiosity once drove learning, is AI now lulling us into passive consumption? Is this an AI-generated blurb?

Imagine this: A student is asked to write a 2,000-word essay on Global Warming. What is the first thing they do now? Unlike 20 years ago, when students would have opened their textbooks, read a few chapters, and stumbled upon something new – sometimes even beyond the core topic – today, they open their browser and type "ChatGPT". In under 30-odd seconds, they get a solid response, edit or paraphrase it, and then go back to whatever they were doing to spend time. The 2024 Annual Student Quest Survey conducted by IC3 Institute and FLAME University corroborates this claim. It shows that about 85% of school students worldwide rely on AI – from basic assignments to making career choices. According to a Pew Research Centre survey, the share of US teens aged 13 to 17 who say they use ChatGPT for their schoolwork has risen from 13% in 2023 to 26% in 2024.

Overreliance on AI tools can lead to cognitive offloading, where individuals depend on technology for tasks that typically require mental effort. Research published in Societies indicates that this dependence may impair critical thinking skills, as users may become less inclined to engage deeply with information when AI provides quick answers. When using AI tools, AI may make suggestions that are contrary to social ethics or even the law. AI tools like ChatGPT are not substitutes for human ingenuity; they are catalysts. These tools empower users to explore ideas and find answers faster by providing instant access to information and novel perspectives. A key characteristic of these systems is their adaptability: they can support complex research and simplify dense data.

The shortcut culture

India thrives on jugaad – smart, resourceful problem-solving. AI chatbots are the ideal tool, automating tasks and delivering instant solutions with minimal effort. More than shortcuts, they embody efficiency at scale – perfect for a culture built on making things work smarter. These tools serve everyday uses, from writing a resignation email to pretending to understand geopolitics in a group debate. Considering this, the question arises: are people using AI-driven technologies like ChatGPT correctly, or have they impacted the level of creativity? This is not to say that people should completely shun these mediums or dismiss that they have expedited efficiency. They do come with a lot of perks. However, this growing reliance on AI can be concerning.

One major disadvantage of these AI tools is that the information they provide can either be inaccurate or outdated. Students who use ChatGPT for their assignments are more likely to engage in plagiarism than those who do not. While it is undoubtedly a valuable tool when used wisely, it should serve to enhance a specific idea or topic rather than overshadow it. These AI tools aren’t going anywhere, nor is the love for these shortcuts. However, it is important to realise the impact of overreliance on such technologies. This isn’t a critique of AI – it’s a reality check. These tools are here to simplify complex processes, not replace the process entirely. If users allow themselves to lean too heavily on them, they risk losing the skills and curiosity that define humans. The future certainly belongs to those who can blend the best of both worlds.

Remaining sharp while taking advantage of AI tools in our daily lives is still possible. Using AI as an assistant is the best approach to take rather than using it as a mentor. Freeing users from complex work is one key use of AI tools. But they shouldn’t be seen as a replacement for rational thinking. It’s important to question everything they say and explore more. The irony is evident – AI doesn’t kill creativity; it rather exposes how often people settle for mediocrity. Perhaps the real question isn’t whether AI makes people lazy but whether it reveals how lazy they already are.

(The writers work at the Takshashila Institution)