🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our time, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he argued, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that directing force for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: logic would supplant blind faith, 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 quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, 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 already a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside our minds – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

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 manage administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only 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 blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock 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 outsource to the algorithm.