AIImpactLab
9 impact clustersWork & marketsCognition & learningTechnical failuresPrivacySecurityEnvironmentLaw & informationSocial good & healthSystemic risk
Search the evidence

Find the signal.

Search titles, impact clusters, countries, organizations and the full text of every analysis.

25 stories found

A painted library with an open book and two luminous paths toward different ways of searching.
Cognition & learningUnited States+2 clusters01

Schools want search. Must they take the AI too?

A teacher can want students to find a primary source without wanting a machine to summarize it first. That is not an argument against every educational use of AI. It is a request to decide which intellectual task the student should do. Google’s November 3 announcement puts access to Search and several Gemini products off by default for K–12 student accounts until administrators enable them, with rollout details still to come. AP reports that the services can be enabled individually, but Google Search itself retains AI. Turning Gemini off is therefore not the same as obtaining a version of Search without generative answers. Google argues that its Guided Learning approach can support problem-solving rather than shortcuts. That is a teaching proposition worth testing, not a reason to erase the distinction. DuckDuckGo offers a practical alternative: a no-AI search endpoint and instructions for managed deployment. Its own documentation also makes clear that filtering AI images is imperfect. No-AI does not mean every result was written by a human, every source is reliable, or all school safeguarding requirements are satisfied. The interesting competition is over who gets to choose the learning process. Before changing a default, a school should compare source quality, accessibility, explicit-content filtering and the burden on teachers. A browser policy that changes address-bar search does not automatically replace Classroom or all the other services a school uses. There is room here for both useful AI tutoring and a deliberate, supported route to research without it.

4 min
A young person at a window has both a phone and possible human connections beyond it.
Social good & healthGlobal+2 clusters02

Some teenagers find AI support helpful. Many still want more help.

If a young person says a conversation helped, I think we should listen. We should also ask the next question: did they get the support they still needed afterwards? A new peer-reviewed study of 24,132 students in England offers an unusually useful distinction. Past-year use of general-purpose AI for mental-health support was reported by 662 students, or 2.7%. Among those answering the helpfulness question, 324 of 580—55.9%—called it helpful. But 410 of 649 respondents to a different question, or 63.2%, wanted additional support. The denominators differ and should not be merged. Most AI users, 610 of 662, also accessed other support. That makes a simple replacement story unconvincing. The chatbot may be one place a person turns within a larger, incomplete support network. The study does not establish that AI caused their difficulties, improved a clinical condition or displaced human care. There is room here for both empathy and caution. Dismissing every helpful interaction would dismiss the experience being reported. Selling that experience as proof of treatment effectiveness would ask it to carry evidence it does not contain. A useful institutional response would investigate who cannot obtain sufficient help, how young people move between digital and human support, and whether referrals actually lead somewhere. This accepted article was published on October 27, but the accessible abstract does not establish the survey field dates. Its percentage should not be presented as a current national adoption estimate.

3 min
An anonymous train passenger wearing smart glasses appears in a reflective window with other riders indistinct behind them.
PrivacyNorway+2 clusters03

Norway's AI-glasses plan asks whether public space still allows privacy

You may be able to tell when someone points a phone at you. A camera hidden in the shape of ordinary glasses changes that everyday calculation. Norway's government says it will propose a temporary prohibition on using AI glasses in selected places while an expert group considers longer-term rules. The list under discussion includes parks and beaches, schools and playgrounds, healthcare settings, and changing rooms. The government says it is not seeking a blanket ban on wearables; it also plans to consider exceptions for vulnerable groups and socially beneficial uses. This is a proposal, not a law in force, and the government has not yet settled the precise technology covered. That uncertainty matters. A device could help a person navigate, read signs or communicate. It could also make bystanders feel they cannot enter a clinic, pool or school without being recorded. We should neither assume every wearer is abusive nor pretend a small indicator light makes consent meaningful to everyone nearby. The practical policy test is narrower than a fight over all wearable computers: identify places where people reasonably need stronger protection, define which recording and recognition functions trigger it, build a workable exception process, and check enforcement without turning the rule into another form of surveillance. A country planning a pause is admitting that social norms have not caught up with the camera on a stranger's face.

5 min
An imagined witness sees two translucent versions of one intersection, with different traffic-sign shapes.
Cognition & learningUnited States+2 clusters04

A misleading AI summary changed what people remembered seeing in a controlled study

You watch a short traffic video. A day or two later, an AI-generated summary tells you the car approached a different sign. When researchers then ask what you saw, how much of your answer comes from the original scene, and how much from the summary? A Georgetown and University of Washington team tested this with U.S. adults watching animated car-pedestrian accident clips. Of 331 people who completed both sessions, 328 passed the attention checks and entered the analysis. Correct recall of the sign was 83.6% after an accurate summary and 44.8% after a misleading one. The label did not reliably protect people: telling participants the text came from AI rather than a human did not significantly change the misinformation effect. This is a controlled result about a specific detail, not proof that every AI summary implants false memories or that police footage behaves the same way. The researchers separately sampled 20 model-generated video summaries and found frequent omissions, but that tiny task-specific sample should not be turned into an error rate for all products. The practical concern is that a reviewer may sincerely try to verify a summary against memory, yet the summary has already influenced what feels familiar. For workplaces, schools and especially investigations, the safeguard is to preserve the original record, disclose what was machine-generated, and check consequential claims against source material before exposure to a polished summary becomes the only version anyone remembers.

6 min
A young adult holds a phone displaying a private health question while a subtle anxiety waveform becomes a bridge toward a warmly lit human support doorway.
Social good & healthUnited States+3 clusters05

AI health questions may be a distress signal, not a cause

The most important finding in this study is also the easiest one to misuse. Researchers analyzed a nationally representative sample of 96,205 U.S. college students and found that those who used generative AI for health questions had 52% higher adjusted odds of screening positive for clinically significant anxiety and 46% higher adjusted odds of screening positive for depression. The University of Florida translates the raw comparison more plainly: about 52% of AI health users screened positive for anxiety versus 43% of nonusers, while 47% screened positive for depression versus 38%. Those numbers do not show that chatbots caused distress. The data were cross-sectional, the direction of the relationship is unknown, and students who are already worried, isolated, unable to access care, or seeking repeated reassurance may be more likely to ask AI for help. The association remained after controlling for prior diagnoses, which makes it useful as a marker but not a verdict. The humane response is neither to panic about chatbots nor to treat their users as patients. Health-oriented AI services can offer a private doorway to information, but they should recognize repeated distress patterns, make uncertainty visible, avoid reinforcing rumination, and provide clear routes to qualified human support. The product insight is personal: sometimes the question tells us more than the answer.

10 min
A European age gate closes across chatbot, social, video, and game portals while a quiet identity-verification system grows behind it.
Law & informationEuropean Union+3 clusters06

EU draft would lock under-15s out of chatbots, social media and online games

A draft European Union plan would create the bloc’s broadest age-based restrictions yet for social media, video-sharing platforms, AI chatbots, and online games. Reuters reports that the proposed EU Kids Act would allow people fifteen and older to open their own accounts. Children aged thirteen and fourteen could receive limited, parent-opened introductory accounts for social and video platforms, while accounts for ages three through twelve would be fully parent-controlled and limited to child-friendly services; children under three would have no access. The draft would also require age verification, tools for reporting harmful content, effective parental controls, and design changes intended to avoid addictive experiences and harmful feeds. Companies would pay a supervisory fee to fund enforcement. This is not law. Details can change before the announcement, and the proposal would still require negotiation with EU countries and the European Parliament. The policy’s strength is that it assigns duties to platforms rather than asking children alone to resist systems optimized for engagement. Its risk is that broad age assurance can create new identity and privacy infrastructure, while a single access rule can flatten important differences among messaging, education, play, health support, and social connection. The test should be whether the final law targets demonstrated mechanisms of harm, minimizes data collection, provides accessible appeals, and measures what children gain or lose after restriction.

7 min
A premium AI learning pod with tailored guidance is separated by glass from a crowded public classroom with worn materials and limited support.
Cognition & learningUnited States+3 clusters07

At $75,000 a year, AI schooling risks turning learning safeguards into a luxury

Yahoo News republishes Fortune reporting on Alpha School, where some families pay up to $75,000 a year for a model that compresses core subjects into two hours with AI tutors and reserves afternoons for workshops in communication, relationships, and other life skills. Human Guides motivate students but do not plan lessons or grade homework. The reported model is not simply automation replacing a teacher. It is a premium package that combines software, adult supervision, small-scale implementation, and the freedom to redesign the school day. That combination matters because the same article describes public schools confronting low literacy, high teacher turnover, limited capacity to experiment, and widespread student use of general chatbots without formal policy. The sharpest inequality may therefore be access to guardrails rather than access to AI itself. Affluent families can buy a supervised environment designed to make AI support learning; other students may receive an unrestricted chatbot, a ban, or an exhausted teacher trying to improvise. The evidence does not yet prove that Alpha's model produces stronger long-term learning, social development, or independent thinking. Tuition is not an outcome measure, and selective enrollment complicates comparisons. Policymakers should demand transparent results while investing in human-supported, evidence-tested tutoring that public schools can actually sustain. If safe AI learning becomes a boutique service, technology will widen the gap it claims to personalize away.

6 min
A classroom cutaway contrasts widespread chatbot access with a student and teacher checking an AI answer against evidence.
Cognition & learningOECD member and partner economies+2 clusters08

PISA finds AI access alone does not create a learning advantage

AI use in education is no longer a pilot program waiting for permission. PISA 2025 surveyed and tested more than 760,000 fifteen-year-olds across 91 countries and economies, and its OECD average shows 45.5% of students use AI at least weekly to help them learn. Yet the report does not find a simple more-use, more-learning relationship. After accounting for socio-economic background, weekly users performed similarly in science to non-users, while students reporting very frequent or occasional use tended to score lower. For summarising and preliminary research, moderate users outperformed both limited and frequent users, but non-users often still outperformed users overall. These are associations, not proof that AI caused the score differences. The sharper policy signal is about instruction. Roughly six in ten students said school lessons had asked them to assess AI-generated information, and students who combined frequent learning use with such opportunities showed a more promising pattern. Disadvantaged students were less likely to receive that practice. That turns the AI divide from a device question into a teaching question. Schools that merely provide chatbots may scale shortcut behavior, distraction, or shallow confidence. Schools that redesign assessment, teach source checking, and make students defend their reasoning may turn the same technology into a learning instrument. The next advantage will not belong to the students with the fastest answer. It will belong to those taught how to challenge it.

5 min
A protected neural signal travels through an AI infrastructure pipeline toward healthcare, research, and consequential decision gates.
PrivacyEuropean Union+3 clusters09

European advisers want neuro-AI governed as infrastructure

Europe's ethics advisers are asking policymakers to stop treating neuro-AI as a collection of futuristic devices. Their new statement defines neuro-AI infrastructures as interconnected systems through which neural data is collected, processed, reused, and turned into AI-powered applications. That shift matters because the most consequential output may not be the original brain signal. It may be a derived inference about attention, emotion, health, capacity, or intent that is generated later, combined with other data, and used in a different context. The European Group on Ethics recommends stronger protection for both neurodata and neurodata-derived inferences, safeguards against disproportionate control in consequential settings, responsible development of brain foundation models, more public-interest governance capacity, and a targeted review of the existing EU legal framework. The opportunities are substantial in healthcare, rehabilitation, and research. So are the institutional risks. A consent form tied to one headset or clinical encounter may not govern an expanding pipeline of models, vendors, secondary users, and future inferences. An infrastructure approach asks who controls the data layer, which uses remain prohibited, whether people can contest derived claims, and whether Europe retains public capacity rather than relying entirely on private platforms. The statement is advisory, not law, and does not resolve which neural inferences are reliable. Privacy rules built around collection can fail when value and harm emerge through recombination. Governance must follow the signal through the whole system.

5 min
A classroom of analog desks remains warmly lit while dozens of generative AI tool tiles wait behind a transparent one-year pause gate.
Cognition & learningNew York City+2 clusters10

New York City is pausing student AI to test what human learning needs

New York City is imposing a one-year moratorium on student-facing generative AI from 2-K through eighth grade, making the nation's largest school district the most restrictive major U.S. system reported so far. The policy affects almost 600,000 students, halts about 40 classroom tools, allows limited high-school use, and still permits teachers to use AI for lesson planning, scheduling, and other administrative work. The city says younger learners need human connection, independent struggle, creativity, curiosity, and durable relationships with educators. Mandated technologies in individualized education and accessibility plans remain available. The pause is defensible as a precaution, but its value depends on whether it becomes a real experiment rather than a symbolic ban. New York previously blocked ChatGPT, then lifted the restriction and introduced a custom teaching assistant. Officials should now publish the learning and wellbeing baseline, define the exceptions, compare outcomes across grades and subjects, audit privacy and vendor claims, collect student and teacher feedback, and state what evidence will determine what returns after the year. The central question is not whether AI belongs in school in the abstract. It is which uses strengthen thinking, which replace the productive difficulty required to learn, and which shift hidden costs onto teachers or families. A moratorium buys time. Only transparent measurement turns that time into policy knowledge.

5 min
A student sits with a glowing chatbot phone while two separate paths point toward emotional distress and a warm doorway to human support, emphasizing association rather than causation.
Cognition & learningCanada+4 clusters11

One in five students used generative AI for emotional support in a large Ontario study

A JAMA Pediatrics cross-sectional study of 39,761 Ontario students found that 21.1 percent used generative AI for emotional support or advice. Students reporting this affective use had higher emotional-problem scores and were more likely to cross a clinical symptom threshold than students who did not. The unadjusted prevalence was 57.7 percent versus 29.2 percent, and an association remained after adjustment for loneliness, mattering, demographic factors, and school-related AI use. The result is important and easy to overstate. A cross-sectional design cannot show that AI caused distress. Children already experiencing emotional problems may be more likely to seek a private, always-available chatbot, and both directions may operate together. The authors frame affective AI use as a distinct marker of psychological distress rather than a diagnosis or causal mechanism. That distinction should guide action. Clinicians and families should ask about chatbot use without shaming children, schools should distinguish functional assistance from emotional refuge, and products should provide age-appropriate privacy protections, clear limits, and visible escalation to qualified human support. The signal is not that every emotional conversation with AI is harmful. It is that a child turning to an algorithm may be telling adults something they have not heard elsewhere.

6 min
A bright AI tutor screen waits in a quiet classroom while empty login indicators and unused student desks dominate the evidence board.
Cognition & learningUnited States+2 clusters12

Nearly half of students never used the AI tutor assigned to them

Futurism highlights a pair of randomized school trials that tested whether human support could increase use of an AI literacy tutor. The primary working paper covers 355 elementary students across two districts. Despite dedicated time, only 60.7 percent and 53.3 percent of students assigned to use the platform independently ever used it; average weekly use was 2.18 and 5.23 minutes. Human tutors focused on motivation, accountability, reflection, and troubleshooting rather than direct reading instruction. Their presence increased use by about one minute a week in one district and 4.4 minutes in the other, while engagement measured by stories completed rose 71 to 80 percent relative to the control averages. The percentage gains sound large because the baseline was extremely low. Usage remained well below the platform provider's recommended 30 minutes a week, and the intervention did not improve reading achievement. The researchers do not conclude that AI tutoring is ineffective because the students never received enough exposure to test that claim. The result is still a warning for procurement: access, scheduled time, and a capable product are not implementation. Schools should require evidence of sustained use, learning outcomes, equitable participation, and the human support costs needed to make the tool matter.

6 min
A high-contrast screenprint shows many distinctive handwritten voices entering an AI editing press and emerging as one uniform text waveform.
Cognition & learningGlobal+4 clusters13

AI writing assistants preserve content while flattening the human signals inside language

A Nature Human Behaviour article reports three studies covering seven datasets, several domains, and more than 880,000 texts. The researchers found that large language models used to polish or rewrite writing often preserved core content while making styles more alike. Across datasets and models, variance in writing complexity fell by a statistically significant 21 to 50 percent. The rewriting also amplified patterns associated with dominant characteristics while suppressing others, shifting language toward conformity. The study links those changes to potential consequences for cultural preservation, personalization, hiring, and diagnostic processes that infer identity or psychological state from language. The result does not mean every AI-assisted sentence destroys individuality, and the observational parts should not be read as a single causal estimate of society-wide change. It shows a measurable risk that convenience standardizes the signals institutions use to understand people. Consequential settings should preserve original text, disclose substantial AI rewriting, and test whether linguistic normalization changes judgments about a person.

5 min
AI switches spread across everyday products while a public trust gauge falls and survey receipts display 63 percent and 71 percent.
Systemic riskUnited States+4 clusters14

AI became harder to avoid while public acceptance moved in the opposite direction

AI features are spreading through search, email, televisions, workplaces, schools, and public infrastructure, but ubiquity is not producing legitimacy. TechCrunch connects the backlash to visible costs and benefits people struggle to feel: job insecurity, unwanted product features, creative displacement, data-center burdens, and promises that remain largely prospective. Pew's 2026 survey found 63 percent of Americans thought AI was advancing too quickly, 71 percent expected it to make personal information less secure, and about six in ten lacked confidence that U.S. companies would develop and use it responsibly. Public skepticism is no longer an obstacle that better messaging can remove. It is market and policy feedback about a bargain whose costs are concrete and whose benefits remain uneven.

5 min
A paper-collage classroom balances an AI tutor and automated grading stamps against a protected teacher-student conversation.
Cognition & learningUnited States+5 clusters15

AI enters classrooms as educators fight to preserve human connection

WCAX reports that schools are testing AI-driven tutoring and automated grading to personalize learning while navigating academic integrity and the possible loss of human connection. The tradeoff cannot be reduced to adoption versus prohibition. A tutor that gives immediate feedback may expand access, and an assistant that handles routine grading may return time to teachers. The same system can make confident mistakes, expose student data, reward answer production over understanding, or shift professional judgment from an educator to a vendor. Schools need evidence about learning outcomes, not only engagement or time saved. They also need clear rules for disclosure, privacy, age-appropriate use, independent assessment, and the teacher's right to override the tool. The safest classroom is not the one with the least technology. It is the one where AI strengthens human teaching without replacing the struggle, trust, and relationship through which students actually learn.

5 min
An ordinary page reveals a statistical pattern under ultraviolet light while an edited strip interrupts the detectable signal.
Law & informationGlobal+4 clusters16

Claude's invisible watermark can flag involvement, but it cannot prove authorship

Anthropic says future Claude models will generate text with a statistical watermark as part of compliance with the European Union's transparency requirements. Its version of Google DeepMind's SynthID-Text changes the source of randomness when a model chooses among similarly suitable next words. It adds no characters, visible marks, extra tokens, user identifiers, organization data, or chat information, and Anthropic says internal testing found no practical quality effect. Detection is probabilistic. With Anthropic's key, a detector can estimate whether Claude was involved in writing a passage; it cannot establish human authorship, identify another model, or distinguish original generation from heavy editing. Confidence is weaker for short samples, factual passages, proofreading, and code because the model has fewer equally valid word choices. Light editing may preserve the signal, while a complete rewrite can remove it. Anthropic plans a detection API and says supported image files will use separate C2PA content credentials.

5 min
A programming student faces three artificial intelligence tutor pathways with rising engagement indicators but unchanged learning gauges.
Cognition & learningGlobal+3 clusters17

More engagement did not mean more learning when AI tutors were steered by prompts

A preregistered ICER 2026 study tested whether system prompts could make AI tutors produce better learning behavior in an authentic introductory programming course. In a three-arm crossover design involving 1,059 students over six weeks, researchers compared a constrained baseline tutor with two tutors prompted to support planning, monitoring, reflection, and deeper cognitive engagement. Across four preregistered confirmatory measures, the study found no statistically significant differences. Exploratory analyses found that students sometimes spent longer, wrote longer messages, and made more constructive contributions with the self-regulated-learning tutors, while the relationship between cognitive load and quiz performance also shifted. Those exploratory patterns should not be presented as confirmed learning gains. The practical signal is narrower and important: changing a tutor's system prompt can change interaction without reliably changing measured learning. Better educational AI may require student choice, adaptive pedagogy, stronger course integration, and evaluation based on durable capability rather than engagement alone.

5 min
A student's polished take-home assignment sits between an artificial intelligence screen and a sealed supervised examination desk in a New South Wales classroom.
Cognition & learningAustralia+3 clusters18

New South Wales may pause take-home assessments as AI puts authentic student work in doubt

The New South Wales government has ordered an urgent review of AI's effects on student learning and the Higher School Certificate. As an immediate step, the minister asked the education standards authority to consider a moratorium on unsupervised take-home assessment tasks while the broader review proceeds. This is a proposed safeguard, not a ban already in force. Major art, design, and technology projects may be exempt, and any interim changes would be subject to advice before possible implementation at the start of Term 4. The policy shift matters because half of an HSC result comes from school-based assessment, some completed outside class. NSW is moving the test from whether an AI detector can catch a submission to whether the assessment design can still demonstrate knowledge, judgment, creativity, and independent work.

4 min
A student faces a blank paper while an artificial intelligence screen displays a perfect essay score and dissolving books reveal the missing learning process.
Cognition & learningGlobal+3 clusters19

AI's classroom shortcut can produce the work while students lose the struggle that builds thought

A new Guardian essay argues that generative AI can produce polished schoolwork while bypassing the work through which students build independent thought. That work includes reading, frustration, memory, and revision. This is a forceful opinion, not a settled causal verdict. It draws on recent research that deserves careful rather than sensational interpretation: randomized experiments found that brief AI assistance improved immediate performance but was followed by worse independent performance and persistence once the tool was removed, while a smaller EEG essay-writing preprint found weaker connectivity, recall, and ownership in the LLM group. The studies do not prove that every classroom use harms every student. They do establish the question schools must answer before scaling the tool: what cognitive work must students still perform for themselves?

5 min
A hotel career ladder loses its lower rungs as a front desk turns into an automated dashboard beneath an empty manager chair.
Work & marketsGlobal+2 clusters20

Hotels may be automating away the jobs that produce future leaders

A CoStar hospitality column argues that AI is removing the entry-level tasks and guest interactions through which future hotel leaders learn judgment. Digital check-in, streamlined revenue work, automated service, and thinner front-desk roles can improve efficiency, but they can also remove the repeated complaints, operational surprises, cost decisions, and supervised mistakes that turn junior staff into capable managers. The risk is delayed and easy to ignore: the payroll saving appears now, while the leadership shortage arrives years later. Hotel companies need to redesign training with schools, preserve manual and customer-facing practice, and recruit for transferable skills before the traditional career ladder loses its lower rungs.

4 min
A premium school tuition invoice overlays an AI tutoring terminal as one campus marker multiplies into fifty.
Work & marketsUnited States+4 clusters21

A $75,000 AI school model is expanding to roughly 50 campuses

Alpha Schools plans to expand from about a dozen locations to roughly 50 campuses during the 2026 school year. Its private-school model charges $45,000 to $75,000 annually, limits core academic instruction to about two hours a day on AI software, and uses highly paid ‘guides’ to coach and motivate students instead of licensed teachers conducting traditional lessons. The company says the design reduces screen time and creates more room for life skills and human interaction. The stakes are larger than one premium-school chain: a model being scaled before strong independent evidence exists could influence how public systems define teaching, tutoring, efficiency, and the role of qualified educators.

4 min
Teen students vote on an AI rulebook inside a school desk shaped like a senate chamber while an unreliable detector is set aside.
Cognition & learningUnited States+3 clusters22

Students wrote the AI school rules adults could not agree on

Ninety-eight teenagers representing all 50 states met in a replica U.S. Senate chamber and passed a student-written AI policy by 82 votes to 16, NPR reports. Their “Students First Act” rejects both unrestricted use and blanket panic: teach AI literacy early, ban AI on graded tests, permit limited study and editing uses after eighth grade, require disclosure, and make students prove mastery. It also says two school officials—not an AI detector alone—should review suspected misuse. The proposal is not law, but it gives school leaders something policy debates often miss: rules shaped by the people expected to learn under them.

3 min
A student faces a split result: faster, higher-scoring AI-assisted homework on one side and declining closed-book exam performance on the other.
Work & marketsChina+4 clusters23

AI made homework faster while exam performance fell

A 30-month study of 26,811 Chinese secondary-school students estimates that generative AI raised homework scores by 18% and cut completion time by 30%, while monthly exam scores fell 20% within six months and high-stakes entrance-exam scores declined over longer exposure. The losses were concentrated among the roughly 80% of AI users whose unusually fast, high-scoring homework suggested that they were outsourcing the work rather than using AI alongside sustained effort.

3 min
A teen silhouette faces an AI chat window while a human support pathway and a caution signal remain visible beside it.
Social good & healthUnited States+4 clusters24

Teen AI use is common—and emotional reliance tracks higher risk

Preliminary research from The Jed Foundation surveyed more than 5,500 middle- and high-school students across 21 U.S. schools and districts between October 2025 and April 2026. Four in five had used AI; more than half used it for academics, nearly one third for relationship or problem-solving advice, more than one in ten for companionship, and nearly three in five when sad, stressed, or lonely. Students who turned to AI for emotional support, advice, difficult emotions, or companionship were also more likely to report poorer mental health, loneliness, and a history of suicidal thoughts or behaviors.

3 min
An AI-assisted lesson plan flowing toward a classroom as student motivation and confidence gauges fall.
Cognition & learningTurkey+2 clusters25

Sungu, Lira and Duckworth, “Generative AI Can Harm Teaching”

In a randomized field experiment across a chain of middle and high schools in Turkey, giving teachers a generative-AI support tool reduced students’ intrinsic motivation by 0.11 standard deviations. Average academic performance did not change, but students taught by lower-performing teachers experienced significant declines in both performance and confidence, showing that a tool that makes lesson preparation easier for teachers does not automatically improve the student experience.

3 min