🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that directing force for society was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel divine will. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to love, faith served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals 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 wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our choices and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study indicated that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to give up personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to accomplish things beyond our minds – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the machine over my companion (a choice she took as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but not always deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we check 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, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers 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 discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.