🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I heeded the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our 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 famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." 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 frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to love, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen guide that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things beyond human capability – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the app over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow 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, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.