🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that captures a defining question of our time, where technology permeates nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that directing force for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen overseer that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage 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 was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had used AI 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 large majority of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The late 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?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate 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 surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the app over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but not always deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify 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, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, 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 lives, and to oppose domination. It was about building a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

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