🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where technology permeates almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed 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 digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers 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 realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with 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 help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. 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 domination. It was about building a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.