🔗 Share this article

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

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a central question of our time, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for divine will. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: reason would replace blind faith, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … remain in perpetual nonage.”

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. 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 argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about building a moral community grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question remains: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.