🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our choices and actions. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload accountability. 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 autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside 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 app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. 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 could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.