Is AI Undermining the Thinking Skills of Africa’s Young Lawyers?

A recent MIT-backed study has ignited global concern about how generative AI particularly tools like ChatGPT is reshaping the way people think. While the research initially focused on children and students, its implications are becoming increasingly relevant in the legal sector, especially in Africa, where the embrace of legal tech is on the rise.

The Digital Dilemma in Legal Education

In the African legal landscape, artificial intelligence tools are quickly becoming a staple from legal research assistants to AI-powered contract drafting systems. Yet, a wave of caution is beginning to rise.

New research led by Anna Kosmyna at MIT, although not peer-reviewed yet, suggests that the overuse of AI tools like ChatGPT could diminish critical thinking skills. “Education on how we use these tools, and promoting the fact that your brain does need to develop in a more analog way, is absolutely critical,” Kosmyna warned.

In Africa, this raises a question with deep consequences: Could the overreliance on AI tools dull the legal reasoning and intellectual rigor the profession demands?

The Lawyer’s Mind: Built Through Argument, Not Autocomplete

Lawyering is a skill rooted in logic, analysis, and persuasive reasoning. It requires the human brain to grapple with complexity, ambiguity, and nuance qualities that current AI models, despite their usefulness, cannot fully replicate.

According to Dr. Zishan Khan, a psychiatrist involved in the study, “Overreliance on LLMs [large language models] can have unintended psychological and cognitive consequences. These neural connections that help you access information, recall facts, and develop resilience are going to weaken.”

This is especially worrying for law students and young lawyers in Africa, who may be tempted to use AI for everything from writing legal opinions to exam prep. What happens to the legal mind when it no longer exercises itself in thinking, arguing, and remembering? Will we see a generation of practitioners who can generate content—but not real counsel?

The African Context: A Double-Edged Sword

Generative AI holds great promise for African legal systems especially in regions where access to legal databases, precedents, and quality mentorship is limited. It can democratize knowledge, reduce research time, and support solo practitioners in remote areas.

However, the same tools can create a generation of shortcut-seekers, lawyers who are skilled in prompting AI, but not in interpreting law. This is a danger the continent cannot afford, especially as Africa looks to build strong local jurisprudence, strengthen judicial institutions, and promote indigenous legal solutions.

An Irony of Automation

Kosmyna’s team even tested the AI’s tendency to “hallucinate” by inserting misleading cues into their paper tricks which many AI summarizers blindly followed. “We specifically wanted to see that, because we were pretty sure the LLM would hallucinate,” she revealed. If this happened in a scientific paper, what are the chances that AI is misrepresenting legal facts, case law, or statutes to unsuspecting users?

From Law Schools to Courtrooms: A Call for Regulation and Education

Law faculties across Africa must now grapple with this: How do you integrate AI into legal education without letting it replace thinking?

Currently, few institutions have clear policies around the use of ChatGPT and similar tools in academic work. Yet the time for guidelines is now. Just as courts regulate citation formats and ethical standards, there must be structured guidance on where AI fits into the African legal curriculum.

Moreover, legal practitioners, regulators, and bar associations must insist on continued human-led thinking in legal work. Critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving are not accessories to the legal profession they are its backbone.

Conclusion: Caution Over Convenience

Scientific studies on AI’s long-term effects are still developing. While some, like those from Harvard and Wharton, show productivity gains, they also suggest decreases in motivation and cognitive depth. That trade-off may be tolerable in customer service or programming but not in law, where human lives and justice are at stake.

As Africa moves toward legal digitalization, we must ask not just “What can AI do for us?”—but also, “What is it taking away?” Because if the cost of convenience is the erosion of the lawyer’s most valuable asset—the mind—then the legal profession will be poorer for it.

Read More Here