🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our time, where technology touches almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was often the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: reason would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting 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 appeal stems from its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a preference to give up personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things beyond our minds – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the app over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about building a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.