Artificial intelligence is no longer a supplementary educational tool; it has become an invisible co-teacher in the lives of young people. But why does this matter to the CEO of Soul, Zhang Lu? Primarily because Soul’s user base is predominantly composed of young adults from Generation Z. What’s more, platforms like Soul App, which combine AI-driven dialogue with emotional and creative features, illustrate how deeply intelligent systems are embedded in the daily lives of youngsters.
Without a doubt, AI tools promise efficiency and personalization. Just as undeniable is the fact that these tools raise an urgent educational question: what happens to thinking itself when answers are always one prompt away?
Academicians, educators, experts from China’s top universities, and corporate players like Soul Zhang Lu’s research team came together to find the answer to this question and to understand where and how risks raise their heads.
The discussion was started with the observations made on the basis of recent research from Chinese universities. These reveal that adolescents use AI more frequently, more independently, and across more learning scenarios than many of their teachers anticipate.
Experts explained that youngsters are coming to depend on AI for homework completion, information retrieval, content summarization, and even multimedia production. Academic establishments are also trying hard to catch up. So, some schools have already introduced intelligent grading systems and AI-based project evaluation tools, which are normalizing algorithmic assessment from a young age.
From the learner’s standpoint, AI offers immediacy, personalization, and nonjudgmental feedback, which appeal to adolescent preferences.
In terms of efficiency, the benefits of AI are undeniable. The technology allows students to move faster, access explanations tailored to their level, and explore topics beyond the classroom syllabus. But efficiency is not always synonymous with understanding.
This is evident in the fact that teachers across multiple regions have begun to observe a subtle but troubling pattern. Students increasingly arrive at correct answers without being able to articulate how they arrived there. The problem here is not plagiarism or misconduct.
The big issue here is cognitive outsourcing. Learning is not merely about arriving at answers; it is about engaging in the mental processes that produce them. When AI performs these processes on behalf of students by summarizing texts, structuring arguments, or generating solutions, there is no opportunity for productive struggle. Over time, this can erode several foundational skills, such as:
∙ Analytical reasoning
∙ Memory consolidation
∙ Metacognition
Soul Zhang Lu’s research team and the other experts attending the seminar said that to bring things back in perspective, both emotional literacy and AI literacy will have to be treated as important. The panel of experts went a step further with the suggestion that restriction is not the solution; intentional integration is. They stated that AI literacy must be taught explicitly, just like reading comprehension or scientific reasoning, and it should include:
∙ Understanding how AI generates outputs
∙ Recognizing limitations and potential biases
∙ Evaluating credibility and accuracy
∙ Knowing when not to use AI
Another factor discussed by Soul Zhang Lu’s researchers and others was the inequality in the AI classroom. Researchers revealed that there are significant disparities in AI exposure and guidance between urban and rural students. This gap risks translating into long-term differences in cognitive habits and digital confidence.
Scholars suggested that initiatives such as shared AI learning platforms, rural deployment programs, and teacher training are essential to prevent AI from becoming a new axis of educational inequality. That said, to some extent, the onus for promoting balanced AI usage among adolescents also lies with tech companies.
Such platforms increasingly shape learning environments, whether they intend to or not. Fortunately, for the users of Soul Zhang Lu’s app, the company’s design philosophy involves emphasizing guidance over answer delivery and embedding anti-addiction mechanisms. This is a real-time example of how technology companies can reinforce rather than undermine cognitive development.
