🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: who gets our trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Writing is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement 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. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to accomplish things beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. 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, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a ethical society based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.