🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested 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. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For ages, that directing force for human thought was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to love, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study indicated that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, 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 attraction lies in its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a modern method of surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to accomplish things outside human capability – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With access to all the data, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.