🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest brain activity and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to offload responsibility. 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 autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a modern method of relinquishing the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside human capability – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. 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 efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.