Answer extracted from The Diary Of A CEO with Steven Bartlett — listen to the full episode below.
What are the neuroscience concerns regarding heavy daily use of AI tools by young people before long-term effects are fully understood?
We cannot predict where heavy AI use will lead because long-term effects may take 20 years to fully understand. The real danger emerges when young people defer their thinking to AI rather than interacting with it — this passive approach risks cognitive decline, since brains that don't stay engaged and active degrade. This is already happening across social networks and professional platforms right now.
The concern isn't about AI itself being harmful, but about how people choose to engage with it. As explored in this episode of The Diary Of A CEO, the distinction between active and passive use is critical. When individuals interact with AI as a tool to extend their thinking—questioning it, building on it, refining ideas—the outcome can enhance productivity and accuracy. When they simply accept its output without engagement, they risk atrophy.
The Interaction Problem: Deferring Versus Engaging
The neuroscientist draws a sharp line: deferring your thinking to AI is fundamentally different from using it to enhance your thinking. If you upload knowledge and ask AI to answer on your behalf without critical engagement, you're not working your brain. If you interact with it, challenge it, and think through its responses, you're amplifying your cognitive capacity.
Real-world patterns already show this risk materializing. Across LinkedIn and social networks, young professionals are publishing AI-generated content daily without modification or personal input. The algorithm rewards them—more likes, more reach—yet the content no longer reflects their own voice or thinking. As discussed in the podcast, this creates a feedback loop where deferral is incentivized by engagement metrics, making passive AI use the path of least resistance for young people seeking social validation.
The Historical Echo: What Calculators Tell Us
A parallel exists with electronic calculators, introduced 30 to 40 years ago. The full cognitive impact didn't become clear for decades. Yet calculators ultimately freed human brainpower for higher-order tasks rather than rote arithmetic, making people more accurate and productive overall. The lesson: tools aren't inherently damaging—how they're used determines the outcome.
The neuroscientist emphasizes that brain activity does decrease when using AI passively, just as it does with calculators. But this alone isn't the measure. What matters is whether that freed cognitive space is reinvested in deeper thinking or abandoned entirely. For young people whose brains are still developing, the stakes are higher—neural pathways reinforced (or not reinforced) during adolescence shape adult cognition.
"You have to have a relationship with it or it's going to turn toxic. It's going to hurt you. But if you have a good relationship with it, it can make your life better."
Unknown Unknown — Neuroscientist and child psychiatrist, president of the foundation running the Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) meeting. He studies brain development, memory formation, and the neurological impacts of technology on young people. He has uploaded all of his books, research papers, and public television specials to his AI clone, and actively engages with it as a thinking partner rather than an answer machine.
The "relationship" metaphor is deliberate: AI is a tool that responds to how you treat it. Passive consumption creates dependency and atrophy. Active dialogue, questioning, and synthesis create growth. For young people still forming cognitive habits, the choice between these two modes may have lasting consequences that won't be visible for years. The genuine concern, as explained in The Diary Of A CEO episode, is that social and professional incentives are currently stacked toward passive deferral—exactly the opposite of what neuroscience would recommend.
To hear more about the neuroscientist's research on AI, brain development, and healthy engagement with emerging technology, listen to the full episode on Listenly.
Key takeaways
- Long-term neurological effects of heavy AI use may not be fully understood for 20 years or more, making current heavy use by young people an experiment still in progress.
- Passive AI use (accepting output without engagement) risks cognitive decline; active use (questioning and thinking with AI) can enhance productivity and accuracy.
- Brain atrophy occurs when people stop working their brains, not from AI itself—the tool's impact depends entirely on how it is engaged.
- Social networks and professional platforms currently reward passive, AI-generated content, creating perverse incentives that push young people toward the riskier usage pattern.
See also
What is the difference between the science of achievement and the art of fulfillment according to Tony Robbins, and why do both matter?
Robbins describes the science of achievement and the art of fulfillment as two completely distinct skills, and argues that an extraordinary life requires mastering both.
How did Tony Robbins's wife Sage change his personal need hierarchy and relationship to love versus contribution?
Robbins describes that for most of his life he placed contribution first and love second, staying until 3:30 in the morning after events so every attendee felt heard.
What did Tony Robbins discover after interviewing 50 billionaire investors including Ray Dalio, Carl Icahn, and Warren Buffett?
Robbins interviewed 50 of the greatest financial minds alive, all of whom started with nothing and became billionaires without inherited wealth.