🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, faith served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our choices and behaviors. We risk ceding 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 found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely 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 yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least brain activity and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to offload 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 preference to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things beyond human capability – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but not always deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers 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 practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about creating a ethical society based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.