This June 2023 article considers perceptions of AI-assisted thinking alongside the ambitions of brain-computer interfaces. Elon Musk’s Neuralink pursued brain-computer interface research, while Musk discussed a longer-term aspiration for closer human–AI interaction. That aspiration was not evidence of enhanced human intelligence or the existence of sentient AI.
A Human Upgrade or a Precursor to Future Challenges
The existing GPTOnline cover is a historical editorial illustration for this 2023 discussion. Its question about a “human upgrade” is not evidence of cognitive enhancement or a scientific finding.
Human Research Authorization and the Journey Ahead
Neuralink received an FDA investigational device exemption in May 2023 to begin human research, not approval of a treatment proven to restore mobility or increase intelligence. Its September 2023 recruitment announcement later described the PRIME study as assessing safety and initial functionality, with an initial goal of controlling a computer cursor or keyboard using thoughts. That later description clarifies the research scope; it should not be read as a clinical result already available in June.
ChatGPT: Transforming Work Methods and Igniting Fresh Perspectives
The article draws on an exploratory account of interviews with undergraduate students in Amsterdam and London. In a June 28, 2023 account, participant Charles Towers-Clark described a group of five doctoral researchers, including himself, and said that the interpretation was his own, not an institutional conclusion of Warwick Business School or the other researchers. The dated account is a later accessible source for this discussion, not proof that it was published before this article’s June 22 date. Student perceptions described below are not measurements of cognitive improvement.
The Unprecedented Rise of ChatGPT
ChatGPT attracted rapid public attention, but its launch should not be confused with the release of GPT-4. OpenAI’s November 30, 2022 launch announcement identifies the initial ChatGPT model as part of the GPT-3.5 series. The original comparison between “GPT3” and “GPT4” user milestones mixed different products and is not retained as a verified adoption statistic.
Upgrading Intelligence: A Competitive Edge or an Even Playing Field?
Some interviewed students saw early ChatGPT use as a way to improve their work or appear more knowledgeable. These were their perceptions, not measured changes in intelligence. Yet, with widespread adoption, some students expressed concerns about the ensuing leveling of the playing field. While the opportunity to upgrade knowledge and assignments emerged, competing against peers became more challenging.
The Divine Power and the Fear of Voicelessness
Amidst the excitement surrounding ChatGPT’s potential, a sense of caution also emerged among some students. An intriguing analogy drawn by one student likened the experience of using ChatGPT to feeling like a deity, capable of creating anything. However, this sense of godlike power instilled a sense of unease. Additionally, there were apprehensions about the potential loss of human creativity and voice in the presence of ChatGPT’s influence.
Critical Thinking: A Balancing Act
One of the recurring discussions centered around the impact of ChatGPT on critical thinking abilities. While students recognized its potential as a tool for intelligence augmentation and perceived brilliance, concerns loomed over the extent to which this technology might inadvertently curtail the utilization of our own cognitive capacities. These comments expressed a concern about learning; they did not demonstrate that using ChatGPT caused a loss of critical-thinking ability. Moreover, several students questioned ChatGPT’s reliability, particularly in the realm of academic referencing.
Unlocking Potential: Pedagogical Innovation and Paradigm Shifts
While ChatGPT’s integration sparks concerns, it also offers possibilities for pedagogical experiments. Universities now face the imperative to adapt outdated assessment methodologies. Shifting the focus from mere content evaluation, they should prioritize measuring critical thinking skills and the ability to synthesize thoughts and concepts. Detection also has limits. In OpenAI’s January 2023 classifier evaluation, the classifier identified 26% of AI-written texts in a challenging English test set as likely AI-written, while falsely labeling 9% of human-written texts. The 26% was a true-positive rate in that test, not overall accuracy or a result for every AI detector. OpenAI later withdrew that classifier on July 20, 2023, after this article’s original publication. Rather than solely combatting their usage, educational institutions should equip students with the skills to leverage AI effectively, recognizing its role in enhancing our human capabilities.
The Irresistible Tide of Change
The interviewed students presented a spectrum of perspectives, from perceiving AI tools as beneficial to harboring concerns about their potential impact on critical thinking. However, the indisputable reality remains that AI tools like ChatGPT are reshaping our lives, whether we embrace or resist their presence.
Instead of discouraging their use, universities can teach students to evaluate AI outputs, verify references and explain their own reasoning. Adapting to this evolving landscape is essential, allowing us to forge a path where AI and human potential converge harmoniously.
