> Thus, knowledge workers with higher levels of trust in GenAI — generally or for specific tasks — perceive engaging in critical thinking activities to be less

> Thus, knowledge workers with higher levels of trust in GenAI — generally or for specific tasks — perceive engaging in critical thinking activities to be less effortful. A possible explanation, supplemented with our qualitative analysis in RQ1 (see Section 4.3.2), is that trust and reliance on GenAI inhibit the enaction of critical thinking, i.e., users underinvest in critical thinking when using GenAI. There is a reduction in certain kinds of effort when using any kind of tool. Another possible explanation is that using LLMs, much like using a pry bar for leverage with physical energy, provides leverage for cognitive energies. Does the person using a pry bar become less physically fit than if they were removing floorboards by hand or do they just get more work done during the day? I don't think there is a problem in exploring the trade-offs for using any kind of tool or technology but the discussion needs to be balanced. Personally, I use LLMs but I'd say I have a critical understanding of their limitations and when it is better to start using another tool, like a book, to learn the skills required to use the tools to achieve the tasks at hand. I will say that using a tool that provides leverage for cognitive energies allows for the cognition to be applied to other parts of the process, typically higher order. For example, I spend much more time thinking about the overall architecture of the memory model in C applications.