🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question of our time, where technology permeates almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our personal instincts, 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 immaturity." This state, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of 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 everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be yes. A study conducted by 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 rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to offload 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 preference to surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks outside our minds – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about building a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies 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.