🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now one of 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 transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on 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 grew progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things outside our minds – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow 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, trust the machine – that could be our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.