🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I heeded the app's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that captures a defining question of our time, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For ages, that directing force for human thought was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that steers our choices 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 Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – 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 more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in 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 promise of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.