Just a few years ago, the biggest challenge in education was access to knowledge. Today, that challenge is fading fast. Information has become available almost instantly. A different question is taking its place: what happens to people when the answer to almost any question is only a few seconds away?
That question sits at the heart of the report “AI Impact Scenarios for Education”, published by Digital Economy. At first glance, it looks like a study about technology in schools and universities. In reality, it asks something much bigger. Can people still analyze information, verify facts, form their own opinions, and make decisions in a world where artificial intelligence can often do those things faster and more conveniently?
The irony is that while society is still debating whether AI is good or bad, students have already made up their minds. According to research cited in the report, 87% of university students use AI tools in their studies. More than one-third rely on them at least once a week. Most say these tools save time and help them complete academic tasks more efficiently. AI has moved beyond being a topic of discussion. It has become part of everyday work. But as its use expands, researchers are beginning to ask a more uncomfortable question: what is happening to the way people think?
One of the studies highlighted in the report comes from Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University. Its conclusion is simple but troubling. The more people trust AI, the less likely they are to question its answers. Over time, users begin to treat AI-generated responses as finished truths. The issue is not laziness. Researchers argue that the structure of intellectual work itself is changing. In the past, much of the effort went into finding information, comparing sources, and building conclusions. Today, people increasingly spend their time reviewing, editing, and adjusting answers that have already been produced for them. Humans remain part of the process, but their role is shifting from problem solver to supervisor.
Researchers at the Swiss Business School reached a similar conclusion. They connect declining critical thinking skills to what they call cognitive offloading. When a tool consistently performs part of the mental work, people gradually feel less need to develop those abilities themselves. An even stronger warning comes from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Researchers compared students who wrote essays on their own, students who used search engines, and students who relied on large language models. Those using AI showed lower levels of cognitive engagement. The study’s authors openly raise concerns about the long-term consequences if this dependence becomes widespread.
At the same time, the report does not present AI as a purely negative force. Its authors repeatedly stress that the impact of AI is not one-sided. The same technology can weaken human abilities or strengthen them. One example comes from a study of design students in China. There, generative AI tools increased students’ confidence, reduced anxiety, and encouraged creative thinking. For many students, AI helped them overcome the fear of making mistakes and the pressure of facing a blank page. In other words, the key factor is not the technology itself. It is how people choose to use it. Some use AI as a thinking partner. Others use it as a replacement for thinking.
This leads directly to one of the biggest questions facing education. Traditional education has always focused on measuring what people know and what they can do on their own. But when every student has access to an intelligent assistant that can write essays, solve problems, and prepare presentations, that model begins to lose its meaning. The report suggests that education will gradually move away from evaluating results and toward evaluating process. What matters will no longer be the final answer. What matters will be the ability to ask the right question, verify information, identify mistakes, and develop independent conclusions. In that sense, the real scarcity of the future may not be knowledge. It may be the ability to work with knowledge independently.
Perhaps the most important part of the report focuses not on technology but on human behavior. According to the authors, many educators are already seeing students use AI not as a learning tool but as a complete substitute for their own work. The problem goes far beyond plagiarism. It challenges the very purpose of education. When an algorithm does the work, students stop practicing analysis, reasoning, and problem solving. The assignment gets completed, but learning never really takes place. Over time, this creates the risk of a generation that knows how to operate powerful tools but rarely faces the challenge of solving difficult problems independently.
This is why the issue is ultimately social rather than technological. In the past, one of humanity’s greatest strengths was the ability to find answers to complex questions. Today, the ability to ask good questions and verify the answers may become even more valuable. Artificial intelligence is not only changing education. It is changing the nature of intellectual work itself. If schools and universities once focused on teaching people how to find solutions, they may soon need to focus on teaching people how to judge solutions generated by machines.
The authors of the report do not call for bans or restrictions. They do not see a return to older educational models as realistic. Instead, they argue that the most promising future lies in a partnership between humans and AI. In this model, algorithms handle repetitive tasks, support personalized learning, and free up time for more meaningful work. Teachers focus on developing critical thinking, motivation, and the ability to deal with uncertainty. AI does not replace people. It amplifies their potential.
Yet the line between that future and a future of educational decline is surprisingly thin. The real question is no longer whether AI will enter education. It already has. The real question is whether education can preserve humanity’s ability to think independently – or whether we are about to witness the rise of the first generation that has never solved a problem without the help of an algorithm.
Lina Yegil kizi, expert of the EconomyKZ.org portal
