🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, faith served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: logic would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a silent overseer that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding 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 AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens 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 late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the least brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a modern method of 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 beyond our minds – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.