🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – 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 "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel divine will. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to love, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder 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 contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – 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 global survey found 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 concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the least brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, 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 perpetual nonage.”

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – 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 understood by a preference to give up autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become 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, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. 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 oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: 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 must strive not to delegate to the machine.