🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our time, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that directing force for society was often the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the social world, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, 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 people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became 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 lies in its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a modern method of surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks outside human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the machine over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, 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 fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for 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 freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling 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 rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.