🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a central question of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

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 immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: logic would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that steers our choices and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps 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.”

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to give up personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

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

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question remains: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.