🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a defining question of our time, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the social world, from commerce to love, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: logic would supplant superstition, and the human mind, liberated 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 slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our choices and behaviors. 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 Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of respondents 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 relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a modern method of relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century 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 administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and as a society. 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 oppose control. 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 paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.