🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that captures a central question of our time, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to channel divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital method of relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the machine over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but not always deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, 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 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: 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 century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.