When it comes to large language model-powered tools, there are generally two broad categories of users. On one side are those who treat AI as a powerful but sometimes faulty service that needs careful human oversight and review to detect reasoning or factual flaws in responses. On the other side are those who routinely outsource their critical thinking to what they see as an all-knowing machine.

Recent research goes a long way to forming a new psychological framework for that second group, which regularly engages in “cognitive surrender” to AI’s seemingly authoritative answers. That research also provides some experimental examination of when and why people are willing to outsource their critical thinking to AI, and how factors like time pressure and external incentives can affect that decision.


This paragraph is particularly noteworthy:
But the researchers argue that AI systems have given rise to a categorically different form of “cognitive surrender” in which users provide “minimal internal engagement” and accept an AI’s reasoning wholesale without oversight or verification. This “uncritical abdication of reasoning itself” is particularly common when an LLM’s output is “delivered fluently, confidently, or with minimal friction,” they point out.


Full article on Ars Technica

Tracks with what I've seen. The temptation to just accept the first AI answer instead of verifying is real, even on stuff that's easy to double-check. Probably worse for people who have no way to sanity-check the output at all.