🔗 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 companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

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 essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – 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 human tendency to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital method of relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the app over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With access to all the data, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but not always deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about creating a moral community based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.