🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the app over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With access to real-time information, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to 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 Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.