🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, 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-inflicted immaturity." This state, he argued, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to speak for divine will. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our choices 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 computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling 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 many of men … remain in perpetual nonage.”

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method 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 human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.