🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where technology touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to channel divine will. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping 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 ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: logic would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study found that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things outside our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the app over my companion (a decision she took as an affront). With access to all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. 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 acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters 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 oppose domination. It was about creating a ethical society based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the key question is this: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.