🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question of our time, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For ages, that directing force for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel divine will. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would supplant superstition, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – 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 partly explained by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things beyond human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, 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 future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.