🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For ages, that directing force for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to speak for divine will. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the confidence to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era emerged: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the hard-won 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 was launched a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, 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 convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a modern method of relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things beyond human capability – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. 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. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about building a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.