🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to love, religious doctrine 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 just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that influences our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … stay in perpetual nonage.”

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. 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 appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a modern method of relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

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

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking 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 doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question remains: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.