🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith served as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a fresh era arrived: logic would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that steers our choices and actions. 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 AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to offload 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 for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a digital method of relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the app over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. 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, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores 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 debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.