🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel divine will. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn emerged: reason would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our choices and actions. We risk ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a choice she took as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about building a ethical society based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.