🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For centuries, that directing force for society was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – 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 understood by a preference to give up personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. 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.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. 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 merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.