🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our time, where technology permeates nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that directing force for society was often the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, faith served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: logic would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – 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 yet a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence 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 queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it express 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 once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the app over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about creating a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.