🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app 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, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question of our time, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

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 nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel divine will. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a fresh era emerged: logic would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that steers our choices and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints 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 nothing. Those who could use AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. 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 offers a modern avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, 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 must strive not to outsource to the machine.