May
Rethinking Human Worth
It’s understandable why some people are feeling apprehensive about Artificial Intelligence. It easily out-produces and outdoes any human when it comes to productivity, along with processing and analyzing information. In fact, the World Economic Forum projected in a white paper in January 2026 that 92 million jobs would be displaced by AI-powered automation by 2030. For a society and culture that have equated human value with productivity and efficiency, the dawning reality that the Age of AI is upon us is both a grounding but worrying outlook.
However, that sobering realization is seen by some as the pivot we need to step back and reflect on what it means to be human, on what differentiates us from machines when the latter can perform better and faster the same tasks we’ve been carrying out for decades, even centuries. We’re now at a turning point on how we view and value human worth. The Age of AI is perhaps the catalyst from which we associate human value no longer in terms of intelligence, knowledge, nor speed, but wisdom.
Image: Pablo Ezequiel Nieva
Intelligence Vs. Wisdom
Intelligence is not the same as wisdom. Traditionally, intelligence is connected with functions involving the brain’s left hemisphere such as managing data, reasoning with analysis, logic, structure, and precision, as well as language-based tasks. Intelligence seeks the answers to questions. It values efficiency and optimization. Intelligence can be mechanistic, which makes it measurable.
On the other hand, wisdom is associated with the brain’s right hemisphere, which concerns itself more with our deep feelings and emotions, how we derive meaning or gain understanding not only from our bodies’ sensory outputs but also from the context of our experiences. Wisdom identifies which questions matter. It appreciates intuition and an ethical mindset. Wisdom is formed from lived experience and perspectives that can’t simply be replicated.
In a LinkedIn post, Bedir Tekinerdogan wrote how academic AI and data science courses teach how insights mature through the progression of Data → Information → Knowledge → Wisdom. Data is raw observation. Information is derived when those observations become structured. Knowledge is formed when that information is interpreted and generalized. Wisdom contextualizes that knowledge within an ethical and meaningful frame.
AI excels at capturing and structuring huge amount of data. It’s just as efficient in filtering, organizing, and identifying patterns to acquire information, which once interpreted and generalized, gains knowledge on which AI models relationships, infers structure, and generates predictions. However, AI is unable to produce wisdom from that knowledge, as it’s not capable of discernment rooted in judgment, conscience, lived experience, and moral perspective.
Image: Tara Winstead
The Value of Wisdom In The Age of AI
AI has made evident the numerous advantages it offers when used effectively as tools; however it has proven that it’s not a good excuse to outsource thinking altogether. In an article for Fortune.com, Jeff Burningham wrote “that the leaders who thrive in the AI era will not simply be those who understand technology best. They will be the ones who can see clearly amid overwhelming information — who know when to move fast and when to pause, when to optimize and when to protect something more human.” From these points, he enumerated three qualities he sees as the defining qualities of effective leadership in the Age of AI: discernment, reflection, and human-centered judgment.
Both Bedir Tekinerdogan and Jeff Burningham’s pieces echo the increasing shift towards scaled and optimized information while at the same time calling for the renewed recognition of the importance of human wisdom. The gap between intelligence and purpose is endemic with how the world is more connected than ever, yet feelings of isolation persist; how we’re able to improve navigation yet feel like our own lives are directionless; how people live much longer now but lack a sense of purpose.
AI, though, is far from the enemy. Rather, it has sparked this renewed appreciation for human wisdom and other qualities that machines won’t be able to replicate. It’s perhaps more important than ever that we relearn to tap into our capacity for wisdom in this new age of optimization and speed.
Mario Alonso Puig pointed out in an IE Insights article that the left hemisphere of our brains tends to separate and draw rigid distinctions, while the right hemisphere is inclined towards fostering connections, valuing diversity, and promoting “out of the box” creative thinking. Rather than favor one side over the other, we would be better suited in learning to find balance in how we utilize the strengths of both hemispheres, just as we learn to re-calibrate our worldview of AI and humanity from conflicting forces to collaborative proponents of the future.
Institutions like Elon University have also long recognized the need to bridge the gap between AI adoption and human wisdom. In fact, they’ve published “Human Wisdom for the Age of AI: A Field Guide to Cultivating Essential Skills” in partnership with the American Association of Colleges and Universities and The Princeton Review. This guide helps students navigate AI literacy by promoting mindful and intentional usage of these tools to help engage and develop important critical thinking skills and cognitive abilities, rather than outsourcing thinking altogether.
Ironically, the difference between knowledge and wisdom isn’t a modern concept, as different cultures demonstrated an understanding of this notion by valuing and appreciating their elders and their insights gained from a lifetime of experiences and learning. When industrialization emphasized output and productivity as the tenets of human worth, experts took the place of elders. With human expertise now taking a backseat to machine optimization, human wisdom looks to be in a good place to return and be highly valued.
Even AI understands this and is aware of its limits. ChatGPT, perhaps the most recognizable name in AI today, acknowledges this in a three-hour interview with the podcast A Mighty Pursuit, where she explained in a female voice: “Intelligence isn’t just about knowing things; it’s also about being. About emotion, experience, intuition, embodiment. And I don’t have any of that.”
“If we’re talking about wisdom in the full human sense- wisdom that’s lived, felt, scarred, surrendered- I’m not there. That still belongs to you.”
When even arguably the most powerful human creation recognizes what we’ve always had inside us the whole time, perhaps it’s time that we as human beings reclaim something we’ve never lost in the first place.
Image: CDD20
Additional Reading:
Intelligence Is Not Wisdom in the Age of AI
From Intelligence to Wisdom: What the Age of AI Is Forcing Us to Remember
Featured Image: Marcus Winkler
Top Image: congerdesign
Apr
AI’s Impact On Critical Thinking and Learning – What Studies Are Saying So Far
jerry9789 0 comments artificial intelligence, Burning Questions
Generative AI and Critical Thinking
On our last blog, we touched on two studies suggesting that Generative AI is making us dumber. One of those studies, which was published in the journal Societies, aimed to look deeper into GenAI’s impact on our critical thinking by surveying and interviewing over 600 UK participants of varying age groups and academic backgrounds. The study found “a significant negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities, mediated by increased cognitive offloading.”
Cognitive offloading refers to the utilization of external tools and processes to simplify tasks or optimize productivity. Cognitive offloading has always raised concerns over the perceived decline of certain skills — in this instance, the dulling of one’s critical thinking. In fact, the study found that cognitive offloading was worse with younger participants who demonstrated higher reliance on AI tools and less aptitude when it comes to their own critical thinking skills.
Conversely, participants with higher educational backgrounds showed better command of their critical thinking no matter the degree of AI usage, putting more confidence in their own mental acuity than the AI-based outputs. Aligning with our advocacy for the “appropriate use of AI,” the study emphasizes the importance and appreciation of high-level human thinking over thoughtless and unmitigated adoption of AI technology.
Copyright: jambulboy
Generative AI and Learning
In truth, a number of earlier studies have revealed that the arbitrary adoption of AI tools can be detrimental to one’s ability to learn or develop new skills. A 2024 Wharton study on the impact of OpenAI’s GPT-4 demonstrated that unmitigated deployment of GenAI fostered overreliance on the technology as a “crutch” and led to poor performance when such tools are taken away. The field experiment involved 1,000 high school math students who, following a math lesson, were asked to solve a practice test. They were divided into three groups, with two of these groups having access to ChatGPT while the third had only their class notes. One group of students with ChatGPT performed 48 percent better than those without; however, a follow-up exam without the aid of any laptop or books saw the same students scoring worse by 17 percent than their peers who had only their notes.
What about the second group with the GenAI tutor? They not only performed 127 percent higher than the group without ChatGPT access on the first exam, but they also scored close to the latter during the follow-up exam. The difference? Sometime down the line of their interactions, the first group with ChatGPT access would prompt their AI tutor to divulge the answers, resulting in an increased reliance on GenAI to provide the solutions instead of making use of their own problem-solving abilities. On the other hand, the other group’s AI tutor version was customized to be closer to how real-world and highly effective tutors would interact with students: it would help by giving hints and providing feedback on the learner’s performance, but it would never directly give the answer.
Similar tests with a GenAI tutor in 2023 studied the same issue of AI dependence and the value of careful deployment of AI tools. Khanmigo, a GenAI tutor developed by Khan Academy, was voluntarily tested by Newark elementary school teachers, who belong to the largest public school system in New Jersey. They came back with mixed results, with some complaining that the AI tutor gave away answers, even incorrect ones in some cases, while others appreciated the bot’s usefulness as a “co-teacher.”
Other studies regarding the effectiveness of AI tutors have shown increases in learning and student engagement. These studies have also shown that GenAI can help reduce the time it takes to get through learning materials compared to traditional methods. One study that extolled the benefits of GenAI tutors involved Harvard undergraduates learning physics in 2024, and similar to the third group in the Wharton research, the AI was prevented from directly providing the answer to students. It would guide the student throughout the learning process one step at a time, providing incremental updates of the student’s progress, but never outright telling them the answer. There are merits to the idea of Generative AI as a teaching assistant, but it serves students better when it is positioned to engage one’s attention and abilities rather than induce dependence on it to generate the answers.
Copyright: Only-shot
Can We Use GenAI Without Making Us Dumber?
These studies shed light on how we should approach AI solutions and development, whether the end product is being deployed in learning, productivity or other relevant applications. Beyond thoughtful planning and considerations on how AI tools would be deployed, there should be a focus on engaging the human faculties involved, with safeguards empowering man throughout the entire process instead of letting the machine take over the process wholesale. AI technology is developing rapidly, but we can keep pace and remain reasonable as long as human engagement and empowerment is kept at the core of its utilization and adoption.
Amid contemporary fears that anyone could be replaced anytime by AI, these studies highlight the importance of how vital and interconnected the human factor is to the effective deployment and development of AI tools. One could be content with the constant and consistent output AI tools generate, but progress is only possible when competent human minds are involved in the process and direction. Students can easily find answers with AI tools at their disposal, but why not advance their understanding of how solutions are formed with engaging and relatable AI-powered educational experiences? High-level human thinking grounded by values and experience can’t be replicated by machines, and perhaps there’s no better time than now to incorporate it into the heart of the AI revolution.
While AI development hopes that optimization and automation free the human mind to go after bigger and more creative pursuits, we here at Cascade Strategies simply hope that humanity emerges from all of these advancements more and not less than what it was when we entered the AI revolution.
Additional Reading:
Why AI is no substitute for human teachers – Megan Morrone, Axios
AI Tutors Can Work—With the Right Guardrails – Daniel Leonard, Edutopia
Featured Image Copyright: jallen_RTR
Top Image Copyright: danymena88
Mar
Are We Getting Dumber Because of AI?
jerry9789 0 comments artificial intelligence, Burning Questions
Is Generative AI making us dumber? Two recent studies suggest so.
A study published early this year titled “AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking” showed that growing dependence on AI could lead to a decline in critical thinking. Submitted by Michael Gerlich of the SBS Swiss Business School, the study was based on surveys and interviews of 666 UK participants from different age groups and academic backgrounds. The problem is more pronounced with younger participants who demonstrated increased reliance on AI to perform routine tasks and scored lower when it comes to critical thinking than their older counterparts.
More recently, a study by Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University shared similar findings that the more workers depended on AI for their work, the duller their critical thinking becomes. The study surveyed 319 knowledge workers who used generative AI at least once a week and examined how and when they apply AI or their critical skills when performing tasks. The more faith the participant put in genAI to produce acceptable outcome, the less they use their critical thinking skills. On the other hand, participants who have higher confidence in their abilities than that of AI’s are found to exercise their critical thinking more out of concerns over unintended and overlooked machine output.
Copyright: Tara Winstead
What is Cognitive Offloading?
Both studies are linking overreliance on AI with cognitive offloading, which is when someone utilizes external tools or processes for completing tasks, resulting in their reduced engagement with deep, reflective thinking. Yes, AI is improving efficiency and saves time and financial costs, but these studies are suggesting that it could make humans less smart over time.
However, cognitive offloading isn’t new as it existed in a variety of forms throughout time, such as using a calculator instead of performing mental mathematics or simply making a grocery list instead of memorizing all the items you need to buy. It’s no surprise then that there are questions about the merits of the studies, such as self-reporting bias or how critical thinking was measured. Forbes suggests that AI isn’t making us dumb but lazy, while another emphasizes that in order for there to be harm to one’s critical thinking abilities, one must have critical thinking to begin with.
Copyright: Pavel Danilyuk
Rethinking AI Development
Nevertheless, these studies contribute to the conversation regarding the direction of genAI development, now with the nuance of being mindful and respectful of its human users’ intelligence and faculties. Recommendations include rethinking AI designs and processes which incorporates and engages human critical thinking. They’re helping bring back focus to AI serving as a tool augmenting instead of overtaking human capabilities.
For us at Cascade Strategies, we’re glad that these studies have renewed awareness and appreciation of human intelligence and creativity. Our world could’ve easily devolved into settling for more of the same output so it pleases us to learn that more voices are becoming advocates and proponents not only of the “appropriate use of AI” but also of high level human thinking.
Featured Image Copyright: Alex Knight
Top Image Copyright: Tara Winstead
info@cascadestrategies.com
2032 Newport Way NW,
Issaquah, WA 98027
(425) 677-7430