🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn emerged: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed 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 guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors 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 blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the key question remains: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.