🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: who gets our 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 "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the social world, from economics to love, 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 simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study indicated that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Writing is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the answer 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 nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to give up personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a modern avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to accomplish things beyond our minds – 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 companion (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the key question is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.