Excessive dependence on AI may reduce human interaction and dehumanize adult education¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-17 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Excessive dependence on digital systems may reduce human interaction—dialogue, collaboration, and emotional support—that remains central to adult learning. → Theodora 2026

Evidence¶

Theodora 2026¶

Theodora, A., & Tselios, N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence in Lifelong Learning: Opportunities and Challenges in Adult Education Policy. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16296 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.16296

q2 · i? · review · r2

The paper, a conceptual discussion of adult education policy drawing on literature and international policy frameworks rather than a systematic or empirical review, warns of over-reliance on AI technologies, arguing dialogue, collaboration, and emotional support are essential components of meaningful educational experiences that AI cannot fully replicate. It cites Biesta's caution that education should not be driven solely by efficiency and performance metrics.

"While automation can enhance efficiency, excessive dependence on digital systems may lead to a reduction in human interaction, which remains a central element of adult learning."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Excessive GenAI reliance risks undermining foundational ICT knowledge, supporting supervised in-person assessment of foundational content — related
• Design thesis: AI in socio-emotional teacher development is acceptable and potentially valuable when it functions as relational infrastructure rather than a substitutive emotional agent, evaluated through relational densification — related
• Dialogue underpins networked learning: thinking in networks means thinking through collaborative dialogue — related
• Human-human L2 dialogue has more and shorter turns while AI dialogue has fewer, longer turns with more words per turn — related
• Teachers' engagement growth was negotiated through balancing challenges and cognitive load, with some experiences of strain and isolation — related
• Current AIED rests on five faulty assumptions that risk learner dependence, isolation, and reduced flourishing — related
• Over-reliance on GAI risks weakening teaching and social presence and depriving students of foundational skill development — a broader claim this one bears on
• Personalized learning functions as a collaborative human–AI model in which teachers and AI systems play complementary roles — related
• Outsourcing productive struggle to AI risks cognitive debt, and reactive compliance-focused approaches are insufficient — related
• The current GenAI discourse promises efficiencies while automation of pedagogical design risks devaluing the educational process and undermining educator expertise — related
• AIED research has predominantly framed AI as automation or personalization, privileging individual outcomes over social processes — related
• The article argues that GAI systems' adaptive functionality inherently encourages over-reliance rather than fostering learner-centric data collection for SDL — related
• GenAI communication benefits depend on integration: embedded agents enhance communication more than external tools, but efficiency can reduce the need for human communication — related
• GenAI can foster psychologically safe team interaction while risking reduced human interaction over time — related
• Human teacher–GenAI collaboration in embodied mathematics learning calls for a complementary interaction model combining AI feedback with human metacognitive guidance — related
• For some students, AI-generated feedback reduces the perceived personal risk of exposing weaknesses, functioning as a psychologically safe space for feedback seeking — related
• Easy access to AI-generated answers may reduce learners' motivation to engage deeply with material — related
• AI-generated diagnostic information is inherently incomplete, focusing on performance data and omitting contextual and motivational information — related
• AI is not an inherently autonomous, intelligent, or objective entity but a product of human ingenuity dependent on exploitative labour and data extraction — related
• A systematic review reports that over-reliance on AI dialogue systems fosters complacency and dependency and may weaken students' decision-making — related
• Current LLMs are more vulnerable to education-specific risks such as academic misconduct and excessive cognitive load than to conventional safety risks in K-12 educational interactions — related
• A 2025 systematic review reports that AI tools raising social presence and emotional engagement may improve AI-supported collaborative learning outcomes — reports the opposite
• During the pilot, interaction sessions remained bounded in duration and frequency, and dependency-related risk signals were rare and addressed through prompts encouraging human contact — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Hybrid work must be reconceptualised to include the human/AI duality alongside the presence/virtual continuum — related
• Automating constructive alignment with GenAI risks shifting it towards an instrument of compliance — related