🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, 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. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that captures a defining question of our time, where technology 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 influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for generative AI, 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?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the least brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. It saves time, 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 preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a digital 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. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With access to real-time information, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates answers, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for 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 error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.