🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that captures a central question of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to speak for God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

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

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track 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 least brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – 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 human tendency to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed 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 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.