🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion 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. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

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-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that steers our choices and actions. We risk ceding the historically earned courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we let it speak for us. Writing is now among the top 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?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern method of surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to accomplish things outside human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With access to real-time information, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic 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 may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle 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 optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the key question remains: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.