Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that research will show what you're hoping it would. I'm not a big proponent of AI, you shouldn't bother going through my history but it is there to back up my statement if you're bored. Anyway, even I find it hard to argue against AI agents for productivity, but I think ik depend a lot on how you use them. As an anecdotal example I mainly work with Python, C and Go, but once in a while I also work with…
You're proving the point in the actual research. Programmers who only use AI for learning/coding will lose this knowledge (of python, for example) that you have gained by actually "doing" it.
Perhaps one of the more concerning findings is that participants in the LLM-to-Brain group repeatedly focused on a narrower set of ideas, as evidenced by n-gram analysis (see topics COURAGE, FORETHOUGHT, and PERFECT in Figures 82, 83, and 85, respectively) and supported by interview responses. This repetition suggests that many participants may not have engaged deeply with the topics or critically examined the material provided by the LLM.
When individuals fail to critically engage with a subject, their writing might become biased and superficial. This pattern reflects the accumulation of cognitive debt, a condition in which repeated reliance on external systems like LLMs replaces the effortful cognitive processes required for independent thinking.
Cognitive debt defers mental effort in the short term but results in long-term costs, such as diminished critical inquiry, increased vulnerability to manipulation, decreased creativity. When participants reproduce suggestions without evaluating their accuracy or relevance, they not only forfeit ownership of the ideas but also risk internalizing shallow or biased perspectives.