🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. 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 commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that captures a defining question of our time, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to speak for God's voice. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era emerged: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide 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 lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … remain in perpetual nonage.”

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the machine over my companion (a choice 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 opaque system. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with 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 inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters 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 resist domination. It was about building a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question is this: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.