🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I heeded the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where technology permeates almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to love, faith served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage 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 was launched a mere three years ago, and already a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections 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 is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. 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 surrender personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things beyond our minds – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.