🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that captures a central question of our time, where technology touches almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the driver 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 suggesting a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – 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 gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey found that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. 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 cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … stay in perpetual nonage.”

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but not always fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about creating a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.