🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people 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 wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen guide that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out 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 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate 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 human tendency to give up personal freedom in for the sake of 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 greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks outside 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 knowledge of all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.