🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, 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 personal instincts, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state 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 choices and behaviors. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method 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 subordination. AI offers a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks outside human capability – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – including its programmers admit this. 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 back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – duties 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. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about building a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.