🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that captures a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among 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 stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method 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 give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things outside human capability – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.