🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. 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 commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our time, where technology touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a fresh era arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent overseer that steers our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The celebrated 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, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things beyond human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, 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 could be our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.