🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that captures a defining question of our era, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

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-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the social world, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: reason would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Writing is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty 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.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It saves time, 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 rise of fascism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital method of relinquishing 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 human capability – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed 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 could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about building a moral community grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.