🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that captures a central question of our time, where technology touches nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to speak for divine will. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, faith served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era emerged: logic would supplant superstition, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became 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.”

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to offload 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 personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside human capability – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the app over my friend (a choice she took as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.