🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen overseer that influences our choices and actions. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it express for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way 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 autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital method of relinquishing the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks outside human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. 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 compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about building a moral community based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.