The power of branding, and the creation of an illusion of higher level authority!-part 1

So, my first proposition for today is about artificial metacognition: giving to AI the ability to think about its thinking . I would like to discuses it with you.

The article explains the idea of “artificial metacognition,” which means giving an AI the ability to think about its own thinking. The author describes how humans use metacognition every day — for example, when we check whether we understood something, or when we notice we made a mistake and correct it. The article argues that if AI systems could do something similar, they might become more reliable, more transparent, and better at explaining why they make certain decisions. It also mentions that this is still an early field, and researchers are trying to understand how to design such systems without giving them unrealistic or dangerous levels of autonomy.

So practically the article introduces the idea of AI that can reflect on its own reasoning; explaining why this could make AI safer and more understandable; and notes that the field is still experimental. Another apple of discord?!

Yes. Researchers are interested in artificial metacognition because current AI systems often behave like “black boxes.” They give answers, but they cannot always explain how they reached them. If an AI could evaluate its own reasoning; detect uncertainty; check for contradictions; and adjust its approach, then it could avoid many errors and communicate more clearly with humans. This would be useful in areas like medicine; law; education; engineering; and any situation where trust and clarity matter.

Ah, ok. Researchers want AI to be more self-aware in a limited, technical sense, so that it can detect mistakes, express uncertainty, and be more trustworthy. Good luck with that! No offense.

None taken. The article also points out that giving AI metacognition is not simple. Human metacognition is tied to emotions, experience, and consciousness, and AI does not have these. So researchers must design artificial versions that work differently but still help. Another challenge is safety: if an AI becomes too autonomous in evaluating itself, it might behave unpredictably. Therefore, the goal is not to create a “thinking” machine like a human, but a tool that can monitor and improve its own reasoning in controlled ways. The main difficulties are that AI does not think like humans, and metacognition must be designed carefully to avoid unpredictable behavior.

For me, the article is useful as a reminder of where AI research is heading. It shows that scientists are not only trying to make AI more powerful, but also more responsible and understandable. From such an article, one can take several things: a clearer picture of how AI might evolve; a sense of the ethical and technical challenges; and a better understanding of why transparency in AI matters. It also invites readers to think critically about what “thinking” means, and how far we should go in giving machines abilities that resemble human mental processes.

I get it. It is a sign that the future of AI is not only about intelligence, but about reflection, safety, and cooperation with humans. Well, how about, humans becoming 'lazy', from all this depending on AI?

It’s a fair worry, and honestly one that comes up every time a new technology becomes part of daily life. Let’s take it step by step, in the conversational style you prefer.

There is a possibility that people might rely too much on AI for tasks they could do themselves. When a tool becomes very convenient, the temptation is to let it handle everything; writing messages; remembering appointments; summarizing texts; making decisions. If someone uses AI for every small thing, their own skills can weaken simply because they’re not being exercised. This is similar to how GPS made many people worse at navigating, or how calculators reduced mental arithmetic practice. Yes, over‑dependence can make people mentally passive if they stop practicing their own abilities.

On the other hand, using tools has always been part of human progress. We don’t call people “lazy” for using washing machines, elevators, or spell‑check. Tools free up time and energy for more meaningful tasks. AI can do the same: it can remove repetitive work; speed up research; help with organization; support creativity. If someone uses AI as a partner rather than a replacement, they can actually become more productive, not less. AI can reduce effort on routine tasks, which is not laziness but efficiency, as long as people stay mentally engaged. The real risk it is — not laziness, but loss of critical thinking

The deeper danger is not that people will lie on the couch all day, but that they might stop questioning information. If someone accepts every AI answer without checking; without thinking; without comparing; then their judgment becomes weaker. Critical thinking is like a muscle: it needs use. AI can support thinking, but it should not replace the act of thinking. The main risk is losing the habit of evaluating information, not physical or mental laziness in general.

The solution is simple and practical: use AI as a collaborator. Let it help, but keep your brain in the loop. Ask why; compare answers; add your own ideas; treat AI as a tool, not an authority. This keeps your skills active while still benefiting from the speed and convenience of the technology. More than enough: stay mentally involved; treat AI as a helper, not a replacement.

So, in few words, what do you think?

For me, the discussion is a reminder that technology always changes human habits, but humans adapt. AI can make life easier, but it doesn’t remove the need for curiosity, judgment, or creativity. What I “make” of this concern is that it’s healthy: it pushes people to use AI responsibly. The goal is not to avoid AI, but to avoid using it blindly. When people stay active in their thinking, AI becomes a powerful extension of human ability, not a threat to it.

""What I “make” of this concern is that it’s healthy''= really? Have a look here bellow, on a comment from real scientist, not me.

''Is the Use of AI Changing the Way We Think About Thinking? Genevieve Carlton, Ph.D. By Genevieve Carlton, Ph.D. Updated on August 28, 2025''=:''The Impacts of AI on Metacognition; “Perhaps you have noticed decreased spelling capabilities from reliance on autocorrect and decreased digit span capacity from not having to recall seven-digit phone numbers,” said Dr. Chappell. “Lack of use and repetition of the tasks prevents implicit storage.Thus, we see that dependence on such tools works against development and maintenance of that skill, especially before a skill has been adequately developed.” “Cognitive impact also includes decreasing attention span and concentration, increasing attention deficit disorder behavior, increased impulsivity, and decreased time allotted to critical thinking before decision making, as has been well documented in peer-reviewed journals,” she said.

You brought a strong passage from Genevieve Carlton’s article, quoting Dr. Chappell about how AI tools may affect metacognition — our ability to think about our own thinking. Let’s unpack it. What Dr. Chappell is saying

Dr. Chappell points out something many people have already noticed in daily life: when a tool takes over a task for us, our brain slowly stops practicing that task. She gives simple examples; spelling becomes weaker when autocorrect fixes everything; memory for numbers becomes weaker when we never need to remember phone numbers. The idea is that skills need repetition to stay strong. If a skill is not used; not repeated; not challenged; it fades. This is especially true for skills that were never fully developed in the first place, like young people learning to write or calculate while constantly relying on digital help. Skills weaken when we stop using them, and AI tools can accelerate this process.

The broader cognitive effects she mentions: Dr. Chappell also talks about deeper mental changes. She says that constant use of fast, automated tools can reduce attention span; reduce concentration; increase impulsive behavior; and reduce the time people spend thinking before making a decision. These effects have been observed in studies long before AI — for example, with smartphones and social media — but AI adds another layer because it can do thinking tasks for us. When a tool gives instant answers, the brain gets used to shortcuts. It becomes harder to tolerate slow thinking, reflection, or uncertainty.

AI can contribute to shorter attention spans and more impulsive thinking because it encourages fast, effortless answers. Why this matters for metacognition? Metacognition is the ability to monitor your own thoughts; check your understanding; evaluate your decisions; and correct yourself. If people rely too heavily on AI, they may stop doing these internal checks. Instead of asking “Do I understand this?” or “Is this correct?”, they may simply trust the tool. Over time, this weakens the habit of self‑reflection. It’s not that AI destroys metacognition, but it can make people forget to use it.

I agree with you. Over‑reliance on AI can weaken the habit of thinking about our own thinking. What I take from this is not a message of fear, but a reminder of balance. Tools always change how humans think — writing changed memory; calculators changed arithmetic; the internet changed information retrieval. AI is simply the next step. The danger is not the tool itself, but the passive use of it. If people use AI as a shortcut for everything, their mental muscles weaken. But if they use AI as a partner — to explore ideas; to check their reasoning; to learn more deeply — then AI can actually strengthen metacognition instead of weakening it.

I see it as a call to stay awake mentally. To keep questioning; keep reflecting; keep thinking even when a machine can think for you. AI should be a support, not a substitute. When used consciously, it can expand human thinking rather than shrink it.

I wonder why the choice of the word = Metacognition. Why Meta + cognition? Somethings come to my ear [and mind] like a {what shall i call it?} ... a noise !

It does sound a bit strange at first — “metacognition” has that slightly metallic, mechanical ring to it, like a word that was built in a lab rather than born in everyday speech. Let’s unpack it in a simple, human way.

Word from the author:

Continuation following up on the next article.

©Ca De Luce> MINDFUL MIND Blog 2025 WIX. All rights reserved.

©Ca De Luce> MINDFUL MIND Blog 2025 WIX. No part of this publication may be copied or reproduced without permission.