🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that captures a central question of our time, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he argued, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce 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 use it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer may be yes. 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 no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. 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 appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to accomplish things beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning 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, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about building a moral community based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.