🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: logic would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our choices and actions. We risk ceding 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 debuted a mere three years ago, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we let it speak for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally 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 resist domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.