🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where technology permeates nearly every facet of existence: whom do we 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 "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the confidence to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way 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 give up personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern method of surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things outside human capability – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the machine over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a moral community based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.