🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our decisions and behaviors. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. 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 rise of fascism could be partly explained by a preference to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about building a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.