🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, 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. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the app's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that captures a defining question of our era, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that steers our decisions and behaviors. We risk ceding the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak 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 entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research hints 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, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets 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 affront). With access to real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It produces answers, but not always fostering human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question remains: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.