🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that captures a central question of our era, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential 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 own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, faith served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority 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. Research 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. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI showed the least brain activity and had trouble 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 many of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a modern avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside human capability – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my friend (a decision she took as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both personally 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 oppose control. It was about building a moral community based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

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 bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.