🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a preference to surrender autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a choice she took as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – 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 more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about building a ethical society based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.