It seems plenty obvious, but there's also scientific backing slowly catching up: https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt...

Sure, so we shouldn't assert that with confidence, but I think it's safe to guess that, for most people's use, that is probably the case.

Yes, some people (see some sibling commenters) do engage with an LLM in ways that might make them more thoughtful, but I have a hard time believing that's the common case.

I think it really depends on the how. Engaging with it in a socratic debate-style argument [1] if no fellow human is available might very much support your thought process. On the other hand, just obtaining the solution to one‘s homework/problem/task/… won‘t be very beneficial for one’s development. The latter is sadly much more convenient and probably accounts for most of the usage. I remember a saying about the mind being a muscle: in order to keep it in good shape, you have to use it actively.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

Agreed. In my case, I think I have found the opposite. At least, I find myself thinking hard about things more, now that I have started working hand in hand with AIs on different projects. Which is probably enhancing my cognitive ability, not degrading it.

Long-time lurker.

Personally I stopped using LLMs much from around 6 months ago. I was using them regularly prior to that.

I noticed these dimensions of myself increased:

- Patience - Focus - Ability to hold concepts and reason for longer

and other related qualities improved.

My personal experience tells me they do degrade or hinder oneself from operating maximally. Some may be more sensitive than others - we aren't all the same.

But one thing for sure - younger generations will be more sensitive as they are already exposed to products that are designed to erode their self-control.

It degrades my thought process reading it when I'm expecting human comments. If I want to converse with an LLM, I can do that already.