🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that captures a central question of our time, where technology touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For centuries, 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 natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace superstition, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that steers our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study found that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks beyond our minds – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, 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 could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.