🔗 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 companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central question of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was often the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn emerged: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned 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 debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study found that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “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 answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … stay in perpetual nonage.”

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – 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 partly explained by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

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

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, free 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 advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture 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 inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about building a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.