Igor Ashmanov Warns of the Risk of Cognitive Trauma Among AI Users

Igor Ashmanov has sounded a compelling warning regarding the potential impact of artificial intelligence on human cognitive abilities. During the presentation of the SPCH report "Digital Transformation and Protection of Citizens’ Rights in the Digital Space 2.0," Ashmanov articulated concerns that go far beyond technology itself, addressing profound implications for society, law, and individual mental health. These remarks come at a time when discussions around AI regulation, digitalization, and civil rights have become central worldwide. His statement not only draws attention to the intricate relationship between humans and machines but also introduces the concept of cognitive trauma as a real and pressing risk associated with pervasive AI use.

The phenomenon described as cognitive trauma emerges from research indicating that individuals who frequently rely on artificial intelligence to solve problems may experience a measurable decline in their own intellectual capacities. Ashmanov highlighted studies where participants who used AI for task-solving became less capable of independent problem-solving, with these diminished cognitive abilities persisting beyond the duration of the experiments. According to his observations, these effects are not easily reversible, raising critical questions about the long-term impact of AI interaction on brain health and self-reliance in decision-making. Those who managed tasks without digital assistance, in contrast, maintained their original mental faculties, indicating a stark divide in the preservation of cognitive autonomy.

This warning extends to the broader context of AI adoption and legislative responses around the world. Ashmanov noted that legal frameworks addressing artificial intelligence are being implemented rapidly and sometimes without thorough consideration of future consequences. The urgency in governing AI, he suggests, may inadvertently neglect important safeguards needed to protect personal freedom and mental well-being. He described how China is progressing toward a model reminiscent of a "digital concentration camp," where personal data and digital behavior are tightly controlled. Meanwhile, in the United States, the surveillance architecture is largely shaped by powerful corporations, introducing a different but equally pervasive set of challenges. The European Union stands apart in actively seeking measures to defend citizens from digital overreach, demonstrating a more cautious approach to the integration of AI into daily life.

At the heart of Ashmanov’s warning is the assertion that society at large is not fully confronting the gravity of this transition. The faith placed in universal adaptation to digital transformation may obscure the real need for debate and collective decision-making about AI’s place in human affairs. As digitalization accelerates, Ashmanov observes that expectations are shifting and that rights once taken for granted are now being re-negotiated, sometimes without adequate public involvement. The specter of widespread digital surveillance and erosion of personal rights looms, not only as a question of privacy but also as a matter of mental and civic health.

A further dimension highlighted is the migration of criminal activity into the virtual realm. Ashmanov stresses that as legal, economic, and social interactions move online, so do risks and threats, creating a complex environment where personal data, identity, and autonomy are constantly at stake. This digitalization of crime requires not only technical solutions but also enhanced cognitive resilience among individuals, so they can critically evaluate information, recognize manipulation, and protect themselves in an increasingly automated landscape.

The use of terms such as cognitive trauma underscores the seriousness of these issues. Unlike temporary distractions or inconveniences, trauma in this context refers to lasting impairments in mental capabilities, with implications for personal growth, career advancement, and democratic participation. The challenge lies in balancing the undeniable benefits of AI-driven efficiency and convenience against the necessity to foster critical thinking, creativity, and independent reasoning. These skills are at risk of atrophy if daily routines and professional tasks are ceded to automation without mindful boundaries.

Through these observations, Ashmanov’s message is clear: the integration of artificial intelligence into daily life is not a purely technical evolution but a societal turning point that requires vigilance, responsible policy, and a renewed commitment to protecting the independent agency of individuals. As legislative bodies grapple with the intricacies of AI law, and as digitalization continues its relentless advance, it is imperative that rights, mental well-being, and the authentic development of human potential are placed at the forefront of the discussion. The future will be shaped not only by how people use AI, but by how they choose to define the limits and responsibilities that come with this powerful technology.

In summary, Ashmanov’s reflections urge a careful reconsideration of the balance between convenience and cognitive health in the era of artificial intelligence. The call to action is not simply for awareness, but for proactive engagement in shaping a digital future that preserves and enhances human intellect, autonomy, and societal health. The evolving relationship between humans, AI, and the regulatory structures that govern them will undoubtedly define the trajectory of cognitive resilience and freedom in the years to come.