🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he argued, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. 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 allow it speak for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints 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 access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to give up personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck 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 affront). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.