🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our time, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that steers our decisions and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, 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 respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely 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 yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to give up personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the app over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but not always deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we check 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 may become our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

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

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely 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 based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge 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 is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.