🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: 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 famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, faith acted as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it speak 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 find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the app over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the key question remains: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy 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.