🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

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

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To explain natural events 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 “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate 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 give up personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

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

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. 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 domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering 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 reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.