🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that captures a defining question of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a modern method of relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks outside human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the machine over my companion (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – 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 authors of their own lives, and to oppose domination. 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 key question is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.