🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a defining question of our era, 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 machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was often the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the driver 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 intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now one of the most common 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 occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a modern avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks outside human capability – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning 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, trust the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.