🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that captures a central question of our time, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was often the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel divine will. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the social world, from commerce to love, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now one of 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 transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, 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 … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate 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 offers a digital method of relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks outside human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the app over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.