🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that captures a central question of our time, where technology permeates almost every aspect of existence: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served 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 America and France, a fresh era emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that steers our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. 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, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? 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 observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the app over my friend (a choice she took as an affront). With access to all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. 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 creating a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

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