🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the app's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central question of our time, where technology permeates nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an vast number of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests 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 access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … stay in perpetual nonage.”

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers 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 accomplish things outside our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the app over my companion (a choice she took as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, 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 may become our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, 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 outsource to the algorithm.