🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I heeded the app's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For ages, that directing force for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith served 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 confidence to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that steers our choices and behaviors. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey found that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts concern 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 most common 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 transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. 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 give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a modern method of relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.