🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the app's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question of our time, where technology permeates nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

“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 fresh era emerged: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that steers our decisions and actions. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned courage 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 debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it express for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method 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 surrender autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things beyond our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the app over my companion (a choice she took as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – 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 doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.