🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that captures a central question of our era, where technology touches almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was often the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a recent study found that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. 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 give up autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a digital method of relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the machine over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.