🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that captures a central question of our era, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, faith served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our choices and behaviors. We risk ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the key question is this: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.