🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that captures a defining question of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that directing force for human thought was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to speak for God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to accomplish things outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the app over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It produces knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question remains: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.