🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our time, where technology permeates nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

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 immaturity, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, 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 “Dare 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 fresh era arrived: logic would supplant superstition, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress 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 direction is just one example. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and yet 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 looking to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, 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 … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital method of relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my companion (a choice she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed 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 could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about building a ethical society based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, 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 free societies itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.