🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the app's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central question of our time, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet 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 Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations 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 reason!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: logic would replace superstition, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to accomplish things outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to question, 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 exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.