🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, 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 immaturity." This state, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a silent overseer that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the historically earned courage to think independently – 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 recent study found that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but not always deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – 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 optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about building a moral community grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.