🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where technology touches almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he argued, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to channel divine will. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: reason would supplant superstition, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and behaviors. We risk relinquishing 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 a mere three years ago, and already a recent study found 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 guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. 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 all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is 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 verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. 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 just about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about creating a ethical society based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, 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 free societies themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.