🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our time, where technology touches nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

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 emerged: logic would supplant superstition, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen overseer that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

“Inertia and fear,” 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, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things beyond human capability – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With access to real-time information, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.