🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central question of our time, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn emerged: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest brain activity and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to offload 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 give up personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks outside human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – work 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 more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. 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 building a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.