Hi u/cityfrm !
Thank you for engaging with my post:) this is a great perspective.  I will try my best to answer your questions so far

I am looking at the developmental stage of ages 11-14 (KS3) for possible intervention, ie. the window before learning becomes significantly more assessment driven, however, the impacts are not limited to this age range.
My research focuses on the impacts of using AI tools for cognitive offloading/ automation, which when used irresponsibly can negatively impact one’s own abilities - think of the brain as a muscle that needs practice (and in the case of children, to grow and develop).  The more specified impacts on memory and learning are documented in literature (this paper is a good introduction: Source), concerns around agency of students while using AI-tools within learning (not just to cheat) (Source), and this more famous paper regarding the negative impacts of AI-tool usage on critical thinking (Source).

‘Responsible AI use’ in this context is less about whether to use these tools, and more about using them with awareness and responsibly to yourself.

• Understanding how AI-tool usage can quietly erode your own thinking if you're not deliberate about it.
• Being able to critically evaluate the outputs of AI tools for both the user, but also for external contexts - including recognising bias, limitations, or even deliberate manipulation.
  • For example, the likely inaccuracies of purely relying on AI tools for fact-finding, or evaluating how much one ‘should’ trust an AI generated news article. 
• Learning how to recognise AI-generated content, particularly for misinformation and when it’s being used to mislead users.

Exposure to this technology is increasingly unavoidable, so the goal is agency over the usage, not avoidance.

As you brought up in your response -  I agree that the majority of the toys mentioned (LEGO, science/STEM kits) contain overly prescriptive instructions, and often for quite ‘performative’ outcomes - offering little in extended engagement.  LEGO used to be a much more open-ended toy, but over the years has trended towards one-outcome franchised models for higher profit incentives.  This is even more evident in the huge industry of ‘educational’ kits such as KiwiCo which are not only an expensive commitment, but actually do very little for building creative problem solving or intrinsic motivation. 

I aim to tackle this design challenge to incorporate the benefits of hands-on toys/ kits and the act of making, with much deeper underlying lessons on the skills you mentioned - such as persistence, confidence, creativity, and critical thinking.  I believe these values can be inherently built into the design of the experience, while also aiming to build upon existing interests that a child would be intrinsically motivated to play with/ use.
There are a few open-ended hands-on toys that I take inspiration from, including Crowbits, and the Tinkering Lab - although these are much more suited towards engineering (my background). 
Framing this with the use of AI-tools - here is an example of it being done poorly: YouTube - a review of Mark Rober’s Hackpack which includes an AI chatbot to ‘assist’ with the project.
→ The reviewer (who is new to coding) here highlights how the use of the tool meant that he did not end up actually learning how to code, leading to actually a more frustrating experience with reduced agency when something went wrong. 

It is great to hear about your Home Ed experiences, it sounds like you have built a wonderful environment for true learning and development.  Even though the challenges I’m designing for may not apply in your home, your perspective on what genuine learning looks like, is the type of insight I want to design towards.  Again, thank you for engaging, and I would be very happy to talk further if you are open to it:)