🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – other people 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 "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he argued, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that steers our decisions and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the machine over my friend (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It generates answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. 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 may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone 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 outsource to the machine.