🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where technology touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, 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-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to channel divine will. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn emerged: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a global survey found that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort 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 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 Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a choice she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, 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 future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering 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 rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.