🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that captures a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: logic would supplant superstition, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a silent overseer that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least brain activity and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … remain in perpetual nonage.”

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things outside our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but not always deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.