🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was often the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to love, faith acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

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

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by 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 use AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to give up personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern method of relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things outside human capability – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but not always deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of faith. 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 rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

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