It is widely believed that outsourcing cognitive work to AI boosts immediate productivity at the expense of long-term human capital development. An opposing possibility is that AI tools can support skill development by providing just-in-time, high-quality, personalized examples. This work explores whether using an AI writing tool undermines or supports performance on later unaided writing. In Study 1, forecasters predicted that practicing writing cover letters with an AI tool would impair learning compared to practicing alone. However, in Study 2, participants randomly assigned to practice writing with AI improved more on a subsequent writing test than those assigned to practice without AI (d = 0.40***) -- despite exerting less effort, whether measured by time on task, keystrokes, or subjective ratings. In Study 3, participants who had practiced writing with AI again outperformed those who practiced without AI (d = 0.31***). Consistent with the positive impact of exposure to high-quality examples, these participants performed just as well as those who viewed -- but could not edit -- an AI-generated cover letter (d = 0.03, ns). In both Studies 2 and 3, the benefits of practicing with AI persisted in a one-day follow-up writing test. Collectively, these findings constitute an existence proof that, contrary to participants' intuition, using AI tools can improve, rather than undermine, learning.

翻译：普遍认为，将认知工作外包给人工智能虽能提升即时生产力，却会以牺牲长期人力资本发展为代价。另一种相反的可能性是，人工智能工具可通过提供即时、高质量、个性化的案例来支持技能发展。本研究探讨了使用人工智能写作工具究竟会削弱还是支持后续无辅助写作的表现。在研究1中，预测者认为，与独立练习相比，使用人工智能工具练习撰写求职信会损害学习效果。然而在研究2中，随机分配使用人工智能进行写作练习的参与者，在后续写作测试中的表现优于未使用人工智能的练习者（d = 0.40***）——尽管他们在任务耗时、击键次数或主观评分方面付出的努力更少。在研究3中，曾使用人工智能练习写作的参与者再次超越未使用人工智能的练习者（d = 0.31***）。与接触高质量案例产生的积极影响一致，这些参与者的表现与仅能查看（但无法编辑）人工智能生成求职信的参与者持平（d = 0.03，不显著）。在研究2和研究3中，使用人工智能练习带来的益处在一日后的后续写作测试中持续存在。这些发现共同构成了一个存在性证明：与参与者的直觉相反，使用人工智能工具能够改善而非损害学习效果。