🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to love, 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 boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things beyond human capability – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck 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 all the data, surely the app must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist control. 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 offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.