Critical thinking in the age of content creators, artificial intelligence and natural stupidity

This blog is the result of the ranting of three friends: one annoyed by AI-assisted videos on healthy diets going viral on social media, another amused by the human behaviour, and the third listening to both.

"If AI could do my laundry, cook, and wash dishes, I would be thrilled. Sadly, AI is doing the reading, writing, and thinking for me, leaving me with the mundane tasks".

The quote accurately reflects how and where we use AI matters. A recent study also found that continued use of ChatGPT negatively impacts cognitive abilities. The ability to think critically has always been an important cognitive skill, taking us from the Stone Age to the AI age. In this era of endless Internet and AI, with an information deluge, where most of what we read and see is curated by algorithms with hidden business interests, it is essential to develop critical thinking habits or to remind ourselves of what critical thinking means.

The context: The ranting

Social media is full of health hacks and miracle cures, often explained in 90-second reels. Scroll through any platform, and you'll find claims that golden milk can cure nearly everything, raisins soaked in water will transform your energy levels, or that cooking in a pressure cooker or using an air fryer will slowly poison you. The tone is always confident, the language sprinkled with scientific-sounding terms like toxins, metabolism, carcinogens and oxidation, enough to sound credible but rarely complete.

The trick lies in how these messages are crafted. Instead of saying, "Millets or turmeric have proven health benefits when consumed regularly and in moderation," the framing becomes, "This single food can change your life." It's a classic case of packaging partial truths with drama. The explanation often includes chemical terminology or quotes from research out of context, creating an illusion of authority.

What most of us forget to ask is, how much, how often, and under what conditions? A compound shown to have positive effects in lab studies might require doses far higher than any regular diet provides. Quantity and context matter, but algorithms reward exaggeration, not nuance. The more you scare or amaze people, the farther your video travels. And amid the noise of miracle claims and algorithmic amplifiers, our ability to pause, question, and think critically becomes the real casualty. (For example, there are videos which say Protein can kill. Watch it yourself and analyse it yourself.)

Critical thinking is more important now than ever

a) Just because someone uses scientific language, quotes studies, or mentions enzyme names, doesn't mean they are correct or truly scientific. It's easy to cherry-pick points, present them as scientific, and create a misleading narrative that supports an agenda.

b) Humans often struggle to think in probabilities or understand statistics (generalizing). For example, if the baseline cancer rate is 1 in a million, and after a vaccine, it increases to 2 in a million due to some rare side effects, that's a 100% increase in cancer risk. Even if the same vaccine could save thousands of lives, an alternative propagandist could claim that the vaccine caused a 100% increase in cancer. So, when you read a statistic, don't believe it; look for context. (Can you guess what a 30% chance of rain in AccuWeather really means? Research it yourself.)

c) Stop assuming benevolence. Do you really think that all the speakers you see on social media have the divine will to do good for the world, and are here just to provide you with correct information and guide you? When any product is free, you are the product. Most videos will have an agenda, so don't take anything on face value. Consume information from AI, Internet, social media — but not in autopilot mode. Do your thinking, look for the other side of the story, and then make up your mind. That is the essence of thinking critically.

The next question is how to think critically. Although everyone has their own framework, we aim to highlight some broad principles of the thinking process, without attempting to be comprehensive.

Some guiding principles

1. Think in terms of the relative risk and benefit framework

Suppose someone says it's best to eat only freshly cooked meals, and when you keep food in the fridge, some nutrients are lost. Factually, the statement is absolutely correct. However, ask what nutrients are lost by storing it in the fridge. The most likely answer is Vitamin C, and you can always compensate by squeezing some lemon juice on top. If you're really busy, what's the alternative to eating refrigerated food? Order from Swiggy or Zomato and eat outside, which is far less healthy. So, when viewed through the lens of the relative risk and benefit framework, it provides clarity. The second example is the vast, never-ending debate on which cooking oil is best for health. The relative advantage of switching from one type of oil to another yields only a small marginal benefit, whereas significant health benefits can be achieved simply by reducing oil consumption.

2. Always check the facts by going back to the original study or argument quoted

In academia, we use the term "Zombie Statistics" to describe false or misleading numbers that keep being repeated in media, policy, or scholarship, even though they lack solid backing, or the original evidence is misread or does not actually show what is claimed. If you are interested in Zombie statistics in Agriculture, there is a whole blog series by the World Bank on it.¹ In this era of "post-truth", it is always beneficial to return to the source and make sense of the numbers. AI can be employed here to trace the number's origin and make sense of it. Bonus point: Can you trace the original study that said 10,000 steps a day makes you healthy?

3. Always ask what the base value is and then put the numbers in context

When you see numbers presented, such as percentages or percentage increases, ask what the base value is. Ask for an increase over what? What was the base rate in absolute numbers, and what is the absolute increase? Is it over a specific subgroup or the entire sample? What is the sample size, and where was the study conducted?

4. Be cautious when using social media as a source of information: know whom to follow and trust

Social media algorithms often promote content that evokes strong emotions, such as fear, anger, or excitement. As a result, creators frequently highlight posts that may not be accurate to manipulate the algorithm. Therefore, do not base your decisions solely on what you see on social media. Follow the right people who are active in the field (for example, if an economist discusses the Indian economy, you should pay closer attention — but not trust everything at face value). Gather information, think critically, build your own narrative, and identify any gaps in your understanding.

5. There is no clear-cut answer in life; everything is a shade of gray

Most things in life, except basic science like the law of motion, come with exceptions and assumptions. Everything has an element of context attached to it. It is often hard to say what is right and what is wrong, as both sides have merit. One should acknowledge this, weigh both sides of the issue, and consider the context. Also, know that our understanding of what is right and wrong is based on our assumptions, and it is perfectly okay for someone else to have an opposite view. We should be flexible enough to process new information, update our priors, and adjust our views.

6. Know that AI is programmed to take your side (AI is a user pleaser)

When using AI, avoid leading questions. Instead of asking if "X" is unhealthy, a better prompt would be to ask AI to list the health effects of using "X" and then ask follow-up questions. Keep your prompts neutral.

Closing thoughts

In conclusion, we are not here to preach what or how you should think about things. This blog is a result of our shared frustration with how often and how easily people are manipulated by curated campaigns disguised as factual. We initially thought AI could be helpful, as it allows people to cross-check information, but as it turns out, content creators also use AI to make it difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. Don't let AI steal our ability to think; use it as a tool to help us think better.

Don't use AI on auto‑pilot; use it as a co-pilot, where you do the thinking, and stop treating social media like a library. Let's not be the generation remembered for outsourcing our sanity to machines and algorithms.