🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that captures a defining 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 machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, 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 appeal lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow 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, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about building a moral community grounded in 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 advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.