🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that captures a central question of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – figures purporting to speak for divine will. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics 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 confidence to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of 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?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps 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 many of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to offload 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 human tendency to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things beyond human capability – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the machine over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, surely the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily 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 clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, 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 resist control. It was about creating a ethical society based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.