🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught 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 bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that captures a defining question of our time, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

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-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, 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 ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our choices and actions. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – 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 give up autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an affront). With access to real-time information, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. 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. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, 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 use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a ethical society based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.