🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era arrived: logic would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress 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 merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent overseer that steers our decisions and behaviors. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest brain activity and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … remain in perpetual nonage.”

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – work that are repetitive 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 practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.