🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

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 argued, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the social world, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that influences our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption 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 engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern non-work topics. 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 most common uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the answer 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 access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things outside our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the machine over my friend (a choice she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. 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, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – work that are repetitive 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 extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.