🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central question of our era, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel divine will. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a digital method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. 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 just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.