🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, 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-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to speak for divine will. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: logic would supplant superstition, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage 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 yet a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer 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 no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a modern method of relinquishing the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things outside human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about creating a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.