Following observations and comments raise concerns about critical thinking in the age of AI. Jaana Mociejewska, a celebrated US author and video game enthusiast, recently said that “I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.” Further, Rénald Gesnot, in his study concludes that “the externalization of mental functions to AI can reduce intellectual engagement and weaken critical thinking.”^[3] Many researches have now well established that over use and reliance on AI tools reduce critical thinking ability of students. In this backdrop, author traces the roots of critical thinking in education and its role in legal education. It also examines the impact of use of AI on humans' ability to think critically.

Education and Critical Thinking:

Education has always been an instrument for developing and promoting human thinking ability. As a central goal of education, critical thinking is sine qua non to realize the ultimate purpose of reason to understand the world. In 1784, Immanuel Kant, in his celebrated essay “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment,” said that nature has planted the seed of free thinking in humans. Long ago, the German classical “Bildung Conception” considered critical thinking as a key element of education. Interest in critical thinking was reawakened after the publication of Robert H. Ennis's book “A Concept of Critical Thinking” in 1962.^[4] Various social movements and pedagogies supported critical thinking for promoting social activism.

Critical thinking is commonly understood as “the ability to express one's own opinion, which deviates from the mainstream understanding.” Thus, critical thinking yields new ideas or approaches and, as a specific form of thought, is situated within the sphere of thought. When a new idea arises, it may be accepted and become part of the mainstream understanding, or others may challenge it with a different perspective. Hamby believes that “the end of critical thinking is a reasoned decision, reached through a process of critical inquiry.”^[5] It is also defined as a mental activity that includes reasoning, judgment, and problem-solving. It is the art of analyzing and evaluating something with a view to improving it. Hitchcock identifies eight abilities of critical thinking: emotional, imaginative, inferential, experimental, consulting, argument analysis, questioning, and judging.^[6]

The key virtue of critical thinking is “willingness to inquire”. This willingness is the core of education. It is the motivation to employ the above abilities appropriately and aim toward a reasoned decision. It challenges generally accepted beliefs and adopts a new and estranging way of looking. In education, the broader goal of training students to think critically is to help them become self-directed learners who can apply reason, communicate, conduct research, and maintain intellectual discipline. It is also believed that critical thinking contributes to the development of knowledge and innovation. Thus, teaching students to think critically should be the core of the education system. In the age of AI, overreliance on AI tools may diminish this opportunity and weaken critical thinking skills.

Critical Thinking in Legal Education:

Legal scholarship was conservative or moderate until Dutch publishers adopted critical thinking in the journal “Law and Critique” in 1974. It began with a critique of the legal system from a Marxist perspective and went on to develop a more general notion of critical legal thinking. It primarily distinguished between questioning what is self-evident and pursuing a more just society. It is believed that establishing a just society is at the heart of critical thinking and analysis of legal rules.

Judges use critical thinking to decide a case about a legally relevant object and to challenge the mainstream understanding of a phenomenon. Taco Mulder published a brochure titled “I Accuse the Faculty of Law of being non-academic” in 1937 and accused the faculty of law of a lack of critical thinking and empirical research. Twining characterizes the traditional academic approach to law as “narrow, conservative, illiberal, unrealistic, and boring.” Further, Jan Smits writes that “legal education is a discipline in crisis and traditional legal scholarship is under pressure.”^[7] All these observations raise a basic question: what should be the primary concern of legal academics? The traditional study of legislation and case law lacks creativity. It should be concerned with a much more elevated theme. Jan Smits says that, at present, the strategic agenda for higher education and research is “digitization and robotization” of work; however, broader skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving need to be maintained.^[8] In legal education, critical thinking is important from identifying the problem and collecting data to drawing conclusions and evaluating and reflecting on the problem. Thus, the tradition of critical thinking is the foundation of legal education. In the age of AI, it is the responsibility of academic institutions and legal academia to maintain and promote this tradition.

Critical Thinking in the Age of AI:

AI is commonly defined as “the capacity of computers, or other machines, to exhibit intelligent behavior.” It thinks, acts, and learns like a human and, in certain cases, exceeds a human's capacity to think. Advanced algorithms (Brain of AI), data (Fuel for AI), and computing power (Ability of AI) explain how machines can exhibit intelligent behavior. An algorithm tells the computer what to do, data tells it where to learn, and computing power enables it to learn and make decisions. ChatGPT, a popular AI tool, may enhance users' learning by quickly facilitating access to diverse perspectives, information analysis, and argument construction. However, over-reliance on AI can hinder motivation for self-reflection and critical evaluation. To maximize the educational benefits of AI tools, academic institutions are adopting their AI policy. Such policies also focus on the responsible use of AI. However, the pertinent question is how effectively such institutions encourage faculty and students to think critically.

At present, academic institutions are witnessing an increasing use of AI tools by students, researchers, and teachers. The majority of students are now conveniently using AI tools to prepare their assignments, projects, etc., without considering the effects on their critical thinking. Does it not negatively affect students' critical thinking ability? Are academic institutions serious about it? It is argued that uncritical and passive reliance on AI may weaken brain plasticity and erode cognition. The recent study report of MIT Media Lab says that “excessive reliance on AI-driven solutions” may contribute to “cognitive atrophy” and the shrinking of critical thinking ability.^[9] Even when one asks ChatGPT whether AI can make us smarter or dumber, it answers, “It depends on how you engage with it: as a crutch or a tool for growth.”^[10] Thus, the use of AI tools in academic institutions requires proper monitoring so that the ability to think and critical thinking skills are not compromised.

The Way Forward

For a long time, educational institutions in India have been accused of failing to promote critical thinking. The National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP), has once again focused on promoting critical thinking. It has become the core component of the country's education system. On the other hand, post-NEP development of AI tools has posed the challenge of promoting critical thinking again. Academic institutions need to be serious about promoting critical thinking in the age of AI, or be ready to face existential questions in the times to come. Academic institutions need to develop a detailed policy on what constitutes cognitive offloading and what use may enrich learning without it.^[11] The India AI Governance Guidelines, 2025, explicitly prioritize human critical-thinking ability and ensure that AI remains a tool for augmentation rather than a replacement for human cognition. The author argues that policymakers should prescribe a uniform policy regarding the use of AI tools in academic institutions, as is the case with plagiarism.

1. “Policy for using generative AI in research”, University of Oxford, available at: https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/support/governance-and-committees/research-policies/policy-for-using-generative-ai-in ↑

2. “National Law University Delhi AI-Generated Content Policy”, National Law University Delhi, available at: https://nludelhi.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/AI-Policy.pdf ↑

3. Rénald Gesnot, The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Human Thought, Research Monograph and Technical Report Impact Analysis and Foresight, Working Paper VI, July 2025. ↑

4. Robert H. Ennis, “A Concept of Critical Thinking”, Harvard Educational Review (1962). ↑

5. B. Hamby, “Willingness to inquire: The cardinal critical thinking virtue”, in M. Davies, and R. Barnett (eds.), Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015). ↑

6. David Hitchcock, “Educational Methods to Critical thinking”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2022). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/methods.html ↑

7. Jan M. Smits, The Mind and Method of the Legal Academic, (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012). ↑

8. Ibid. ↑

9. Nataliya Kosmyna (et. al.) “Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task”, available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08872v1 ↑

10. Liz Mineo, “Is AI dulling our minds?” available at: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/11/is-ai-dulling-our-minds/ ↑

11. Richa Govil, “Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”, IX (45) Economic & Political Weekly, November 8, 2025. ↑