🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our time, where technology touches almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures purporting to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a global survey found that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks 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 attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload 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 surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering 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 human capability – sifting through 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 friend (a choice she took as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. 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, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, 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 destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: 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 central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.