🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, 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 monarch, or the landowner – figures claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. 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 reason!”

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. 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 personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a modern method of relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things beyond our minds – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck 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 knowledge of real-time information, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

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

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, 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 lives, and to oppose 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 is this: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy 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.