🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical 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 threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, 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 credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about building a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.