🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where technology touches almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith served as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era emerged: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We risk ceding the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey found that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user queries 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. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload accountability. 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 for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a modern method of relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things beyond human capability – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a choice she took as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow 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, trust the machine – that could be our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. 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 more leisure. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about building a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question remains: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.