The name and presentation of that site has a veneer of legitimacy, but it really doesn't seem credible.

I warned about this for the past 3 years. The WHO wants universal mental health care and to drug at least a billion of us.

Do Viruses Exist?

There's also a lot of general antivax stuff.

Now, sharing a lot of ... Questionable articles... Doesn't make the article in question invalid. It does however call into extreme doubt any editorial context the site might be adding.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08872

This is the actual study being referenced. It's conclusions are significantly less severe than this presents them as, while still conveying "LLMs are not generally the best tool for facilitating education".

trade-off highlights an important educational concern: AI tools, while valuable for supporting performance, may unintentionally hinder deep cognitive processing, retention, and authentic engagement with written material. If users rely heavily on AI tools, they may achieve superficial fluency but fail to internalize the knowledge or feel a sense of ownership over it.

from an educational standpoint, these results suggest that strategic timing of AI tool introduction following initial self-driven effort may enhance engagement and neural integration. The corresponding EEG markers indicate this may be a more neurocognitively optimal sequence than consistent AI tool usage from the outset

Ultimately, this isn't saying AI tools cause brain damage or make you stupid. It's saying that learning via LLM often causes worse retention of the information being learned. It also says that search engines and LLMs can remove certain types of cognitive load that are not conducive to retention, making learning easier and faster in some cases where engagement can be kept high.

It's important to be clear and honest about what a study is saying, even if it's not as unequivocally negative as the venue might appreciate.