🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the app's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

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

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined 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 guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel divine will. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: logic would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study found that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we let it express for us. Composition is now among 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 occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least brain activity and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but not always deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the common foundation 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 superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.