🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering 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 go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that captures a central question of our era, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace superstition, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey found that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. 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 cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, participants 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 lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things beyond human capability – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the machine over my friend (a choice she took as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.