From humble beginnings as YouTube content like Skibidi toilets to more exotic Italian repetitions exemplified by Tiktok's Ballerina Cappuccina and Traalero Tralala, brain corruption has entered the mainstream of national consciousness. What once was the quirky cultural touchstone for General Alpha became Oxford Word of the Year in 2024 as adults began to fear an impact on vulnerable young minds.
And now, brain corruption has been normalized as part of Queen's English and has been added to the Oxford English Dictionary with the definition “loss of perceived intelligence of intelligence… due to overconsumption of challenging or inactive content.”
However, “perception” is the keyword here. This is because they are tasked with doing a lot of heavy lifting. There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that spending time engaging in this nonsense content has a demonstrable negative cognitive impact.
Self-aware consumption
Certainly there is evidence of the emotional harm that comes with being obsessed with Tiktok. And there is no doubt that emotions are part of human cognition. Researchers found high levels of depression, anxiety, stress, loneliness, social anxiety, attentional issues, poor life satisfaction, and poor sleep quality.
However, the harm resulting from addictive consumption is a step away from more general fear, especially with equal evidence that these activities have positive emotional effects. Tiktok has been shown to help some young people face mental health challenges by providing validation and community. What's harmful is not the amount of brain rot, but how it is consumed.
Furthermore, as Oed's Fiona McPherson pointed out in his letter to the Guardian, “concerned parents can take comfort in one fact revealed by our research: consumers or victims of brain corruption are people who often use the term…
The science of writing
It's good that parents and teachers have brain corruption on social media on radar. However, nonsense media consumption is not as dangerous as the so-called artificial “intellect.”
In the newly published study, MIT researchers had three groups of students write essays. One group wrote only on natural intelligence, another used search engines as a supportive tool, and a third group used AI to help. Do researchers connect these kids to EEG machines to record brain activity while they are working and guess what they find?
Nature-only intelligence writers had the strongest and widest possible neural network connectivity. The search engine group had a mediocre brain involvement. But a chatbot group? These writers had the weakest brain activity when they worked a mile.
The takeaway of this research, which has not been paid enough attention, means that using AI tools, at least in the context of writing this essay, means you will not learn anything. Your brain doesn't even train. This goes without saying that AI written output is common and not interesting.
All tools have a price
So, before you break the back that tries to integrate this tool into your school's curriculum, what is a “tool”? When will this tool be useful?
Neuroscientists have long warned that when we use tools as an extension of our bodies there is always a cognitive price to pay. It's up to us to decide if the price is worth it. But you need to know the price to value it. Given these costs, AI is not worth it as a writing tool for learners. It's brain decay. Stupid content? The whole picture, it's a distraction.
Parents, teachers and policy makers need to worry much more than they are about the tools that actually slow the brains of children. The entertainment that can recharge them has been a source of surprise since ancient times, and frankly, it's not so interesting or new.
What's new is AI as a versatile writing tool. Perhaps parents and educators should learn from their child's self-awareness in labeling this content as “brain corruption.” Perhaps the point of proper discussion is the intentional ignorance of someone who should be more interested before willing to flow and calling the chatbot “intelligent.”
