In Dune —The legendary novel by Frank Herbert published in 1965 and today popular thanks to the cinema – a phrase that seems written for our digital era appears:
“Once the men left their thoughts in the hands of the machines in the hope of freeing themselves. But that only allowed other men with enslaving machines.”
It was science fiction. Today, a recent MIT study suggests that it could be applied data science and no more science fiction.
And it is that a recent study of the MIT Media Lab wanted to measure what happens in our brain when we write with the help of artificial intelligence. The task for all is the same, writing an essay in 20 minutes. For that, he divided 54 participants into three groups:
1. GROUP llm (Chatgpt): They could only use chatgpt to write their trials.
2. Google Group (traditional search): They accessed only Google and web pages, as we worked before the irruption of AI.
3. Grupo Brain-only: No search engine, without ia. Only memory and reasoning.
After three sessions, there was a fourth surprise: those who always used to write without it, and vice versa. All while they were measured by brain activity with an EEG helmet (electroencephalograph) worthy of Black Mirror with 32 electrós on the head.
The findings are disturbing:
Brain in energy savings mode. Those who used Chatgpt showed the lowest neural connectivity: their brain worked less.
Weakened memory. The IA group was the worst to remember and cite phrases of what they had written minutes before.
Diluted authorship. Many did not feel the text as their own, describing it more as a product “of the machine” than yours.
The Google group showed an intermediate effort: more cognitive load than with AI, but less than the group of “pure brain.” Those who wrote without support were the most mentally active, with greater diversity in their language and greater sense of property.
In the fourth session, those who went from Chatgpt to write without the disadvantage. His brains seemed “unbridled” had run out of their crutches, they were blocked. While those of the “pure brain” group now supported with AI achieved spectacular results. With the help of Chat GPT, the ideas they had thought on their own.
Why does this matter in media and marketing?
This pattern does not stay in the academy. In marketing and media, embrace the AI without measure can produce correct, but flat campaigns and strategies.
Dangerous homogeneity. The texts with AI tend to sound similar. That threatens brand differentiation.
Passive audiences A consumer accustomed to predigenous content becomes less critical and less receptive to deep messages.
Express creativity. The AI accelerates calendars, but can atrophy the creative and strategic long -term muscle.
The strategic dilemma: speed vs. depth
The MIT lesson is clear: AI reduces mental burden and increases immediate productivity, but charges us with interests: less memory, less sense of authorship, less cognitive diversity.
For media and brands, the dilemma is: produce more and faster, or invest in creativity to leave footprint.
The exit is not to give up the AI, but to use it with conscience:
– Complement Prompts with human critical thinking.
– Bet on authentic storytelling, with a cultural context.
– Educate audiences to value the complex and the human.
– The brain, like any muscle, is activated with the effort, but if you do not use it.
The rule is simple: you think first, then consult Chatgpt.
MIT research is not an anti-I manifest. It is a reminder: each tool has a price. Chatgpt helps us produce, but it can also impoverish the way we think.
In marketing, the consequence is clear: campaigns that fulfill Kpis, but lack a soul.
The real question is not whether the AI will replace us. The real question is: will we let us think for us, or will we use it to think better?
About the author:
Twitter: @Cesarenriquez
The opinions expressed are only the responsibility of their authors and are completely independent of the position and the editorial line of Forbes Mexico.
Follow business information and today in Forbes Mexico
