🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust more – 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-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to love, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated 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 answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, 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 stems from its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the machine over my friend (a choice she took as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock 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 outsource to the machine.