OUTSOURCING THE BRAIN? AI EXPERT WARNS BUSINESSES AGAINST AUTOMATING HUMAN JUDGEMENT

AI COULD BE MAKING US THINK LESS: EXPERT WARNS OF ‘COGNITIVE ATROPHY’

Businesses rushing to embrace artificial intelligence risk weakening employees’ capacity for deep thinking, judgement and learning if technology replaces rather than amplifies human thought, according to neuroscience consultant and author Amy Brann.

Artificial intelligence may be increasing workplace productivity, but excessive dependence on the technology could carry a less visible cost: a deterioration in the cognitive abilities businesses increasingly need from their people.

That is the warning from consultant, author and keynote speaker Amy Brann, who argues that organisations need to pay greater attention to the human consequences of rapid AI adoption.

Speaking in an interview with the AI Speakers Agency, Brann said the speed at which artificial intelligence is developing is creating what could be regarded as a “cognitive gap” between technological capabilities and the human brain.

“AI is evolving at this extraordinary speed and the human brain hasn’t really changed, so the gap we’re seeing could be framed as a cognitive gap rather than a technological one,” she said.

“Neuroscience can help us to close that gap by showing us what is it that’s so special about the human brain, and what can we do to optimise the human strength so that we can work with the AI rather than trying to compete against it because we’re going to always be different.”

THE DANGER OF OUTSOURCING HUMAN THOUGHT

The concern is not simply that AI could replace particular jobs or functions. Brann argues that repeatedly transferring thinking itself to machines could alter people’s ability to perform those tasks independently.

“AI is an extraordinary tool, but like any tool, its value depends on how we are using it, and one of the biggest risks of over-reliance is that it leads to cognitive atrophy,” she said.

“If we are outsourcing too much of our thinking, decision making, problem solving, even creativity, we will reduce, weaken the neural pathways that make us effective.”

Brann argues that this is consistent with a fundamental characteristic of the brain: capabilities that are regularly exercised become stronger, while those used less frequently can weaken.

“The brain strengthens what we use it for. So if we stop engaging in deep thinking, we reduce our ability to do it well. There’s also a risk to judgment.”

For employers, this raises a potentially significant question. Productivity improvements generated by AI may be easier to measure than any longer-term deterioration in employees’ independent reasoning and problem-solving abilities.

FASTER ANSWERS, WEAKER UNDERSTANDING?

Learning could present another challenge.

AI can remove much of the effort traditionally involved in researching, analysing and constructing an answer. Brann argues that some of that difficulty is itself an important component of learning.

“When we struggle and have to put discretional effort into something, that is part of how our brain works, learns, encodes knowledge,” she said.

“If AI removes that process, and if there’s no friction, there’s no challenge, there’s no striving. We will get faster answers, but we will get weaker understanding.”

The implications could become particularly important as generative AI becomes embedded across professional environments where employees are expected not merely to produce information but to understand, challenge and act upon it.

WHERE HUMANS STILL HAVE THE ADVANTAGE

Brann does not advocate restricting AI. Instead, she argues for a clearer division between tasks where machines have an advantage and those where human capabilities remain critical.

“So, AI excels at speed, at scale, at pattern recognition, and humans have been said to excel more at the creativity, the empathy, the ethical judgment, and complex decision making,” she said.

“And I think the opportunity lies in combining these strengths effectively.”

One distinction is accountability.

AI can generate recommendations and answers, but it does not personally bear the consequences of acting on them.

“AI can provide answers, but it doesn’t carry accountability or ethics or contextual understanding in the same way humans do,” Brann said.

“It won’t cost it in the way it will cost you and I if we make a mistake or make a poor choice. And over reliance can really lead to overconfidence in what it’s giving us, which, without sufficient critical evaluation, is dangerous.”

THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE

For businesses, effective AI adoption therefore involves more than purchasing software or deploying agents.

Brann argues that some organisations are introducing AI without adequately considering employees’ confidence, behaviour and ways of working.

“A challenge that we’re seeing is that many organisations are trying to adopt AI without addressing the human side, the mind frames, the confidence, the ways of working, and so people are feeling uncertain, resistant, overwhelmed, and that’s predictable,” she said.

Leaders, she argues, need to create environments that preserve people’s capacity to think while enabling them to exploit technology.

“We need the leaders to design for the learners the environments where people can actually think clearly and protect the human bandwidth and protect what makes us uniquely human and able to function the way we do.”

THE EMERGING AI PERFORMANCE DIVIDE

The result could be a new divide within companies — not simply between employees who use AI and those who do not, but between those who understand when to delegate work to AI and when to retain human control.

Brann believes the gap between people who use artificial intelligence intelligently and those who do not could “create really uneven performance across organisations”.

“I don’t think the goal, the closing of the gap, is about making humans more like AI,” she said.

“It’s about helping the humans operate at their best, so that they can intentionally, with agency, use the AIs as an amplifier of their thinking and the will that they want to evoke in the world.”

Her argument points towards a more nuanced phase in corporate AI adoption. Having initially focused on what work artificial intelligence can perform, organisations may increasingly need to decide what work it should perform — and which cognitive capabilities are too important to outsource.

“My aim, my encouragement is not to limit AI, but is to use it intentionally and wisely,” Brann said.

The competitive advantage of AI may ultimately therefore depend not on removing humans from thinking, but on designing businesses in which technology makes human thinking better.

For further information please see: champions-speakers.co.uk