🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the app's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that captures a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a fresh era arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: 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 trust the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise 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 building a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.