🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where technology permeates nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn emerged: logic would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our decisions and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

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 previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections 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 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 appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to real-time information, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic 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 faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – 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 productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.