🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous 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 stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our time, where technology touches nearly every facet of our lives: 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-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For ages, that directing force for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

“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 employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that steers our choices and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won courage 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 a mere three years ago, and already a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital method of relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to accomplish things outside human capability – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the app over my companion (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its creators 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 returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.