Resisting the age of AI-induced brain rot

By Angel Martinez Published Dec 05, 2024 9:41 pm Updated Dec 06, 2024 7:41 pm

Every week, PhilSTAR L!fe explores issues and topics from the perspectives of different age groups, encouraging healthy but meaningful conversations on why they matter. This is Generations by our Gen Z columnist Angel Martinez.

“Brain rot” feels like the kind of term distinct to the digital age.

It’s been used as the catch-all term for Gen Alpha’s hyper-online, self-referential, "skibidi toilet" manner of speaking, as well as the feeling of hyperfixating on a pop culture phenomenon. (Haven’t we all been holding space for the lyrics of Defying Gravity these past few weeks?) Oxford Dictionary’s preferred definition for their proclaimed 2024 Word of the Year is the “supposed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as a result of overconsumption of material considered to be trivial or unchallenging.” 

But, who would have thought that its first usage dates back to the 1850s? The concept was first featured in Henry David Thoreau’s novel Walden, where he laments the erosion of intellectual discourse in favor of watered down ideas. And while this is the oldest definition in the book (pun unintended), this remains more relevant than ever, given our information landscape that is increasingly reliant on artificial intelligence

Think of how we tap ChatGPT to draft everything from emails to eulogies, or fill our "For You" pages with AI-generated slideshows of somber cats to the tune of Billie Eilish’s What Was I Made For?. It’s understandable that the constant demands of the world exhaust us so easily that we cling to any available entertainment. But AI is now encroaching on almost every single facet of our lives that we mindlessly outsource more and more of our humanity to machines. 

The repercussions are greater than we think. “Our brain forms neural connections of certain things we’ve learned. These disappear when no longer used in a process that we can call pruning, similar to how bonsai plants work,” psychologist and University of the Philippines associate professor Dr. Annalyn De Guzman Capulong explains to PhilSTAR L!fe. “If we don’t constantly engage in certain activities or meaningful tasks, we may very well lose the ability to in the future.”

This seems like a natural development among Gen Z, who grew up in a world that rested in the palm of their hands. “Having come of age in a digitized context, Gen Z are receptive to new technology and are also very exposed to the effects of being in this space for so long,” Capulong says. “ChatGPT addresses their distinct need for instant gratification, brought by their rapidly waning attention spans. Not only do they have the answers at their fingertips but they’re also so specific that you barely have to do any thinking for yourself.” 

Our desire for speed, hyper-optimization, and efficiency is a natural byproduct of living in a capitalist society that requires men to be machines. A staggering 94% of Metro Manila’s middle class Zers and millennials felt the impact of inflation last year, while 65% of Filipino Gen Z have another part- or full-time paying gig on top of their main job. When our survival is on the line, we can only do so much and will take any help we can get.

If we constantly rely on machines, thinking by ourselves may be so unappealing an option that chatbots may need to intervene in every single conversation. Critical thinking and creativity could nosedive, as our opinions all mirror whatever large language models are trained to tell us. They’ll be devoid of uniqueness, of a personal touch.

But for those who have the luxury of time, I’m reminded of the Joseph Fasano poem that serendipitously (or algorithmically?) made its way to my timeline before I started this piece. An excerpt reads, “I know your days are precious on this earth / but what are you trying to be free of? The living? The miraculous task of it?” 

As idealistic as it may sound, the beauty of life encompasses our struggles and inconveniences. Being human is about putting in the work and reaping its effects, exerting effort with no certainty of what the final outcome looks like. Must we always relinquish control to the churning machine and accept the results it gives as the most viable product? Can I call something perfect if it’s not truly mine? 

If we constantly rely on machines, thinking by ourselves may be so unappealing an option that chatbots may need to intervene in every single conversation. Critical thinking and creativity could nosedive, as our opinions all mirror whatever large language models are trained to tell us. They’ll be devoid of uniqueness, of a personal touch.

Referring to these responses as primary sources when fact-checking or further reading are no longer in vogue also poses great danger to the way we engage with information. As stated by Reuters Institute, AI-generated output often contains “subtle inaccuracies, oversimplifications, or biased responses that are passed off as truth in a confident tone,” which makes them harder to distinguish from disinformation.

As these platforms remain unregulated and ubiquitous, AI-generated slop will soon create a social media landscape that Jason Koebler of 404 Media refers to as the “zombie internet.” Take a look at the replies section of any post on X: the mass of often unintelligible replies or photos from chatbots masquerading as people has turned the place into an empty shell of a website. One would have to wade through a sea of mind-numbing content made for advertising revenue just to find a semblance of a genuine connection. 

In spite of these consecutive worst-case scenarios, I’m not completely against AI. It’s already positioned itself as the wave of the future, which makes resistance an exercise in futility. Eighty-six percent of students surveyed said that AI assists them in their studies. Capulong shares that teachers are not thinking of combating or curtailing its use and are instead employing a series of methods: from running students’ output through plagiarism checkers, to coming up with other measures of learning that focus on synthesis, implications, and insights.

Rather than surrendering ourselves to it fully, Capulong urges us to take “a more agentic approach and think of it as a mere supplement to the power of the human mind.” Long before this emerging technology was present, humans managed to get by, even with very little. We are inherently creative, resourceful, and intelligent human beings who don’t always need a lot to work with before we make magic. 

Most importantly, we have a heart—something technology can only hope to replicate in this lifetime. Citing Noam Chomsky’s guest essay on The New York Times, she says, “True intelligence is also capable of moral thinking. As humans, we possess a sense of right and wrong, an ability to capture and comprehend the nuances of our experience in a way that AI can’t. It’s not something that we should easily think of giving up.”

Generations by Angel Martinez appears weekly at PhilSTAR L!fe.