🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that captures a defining question of our time, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that directing force for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to speak for divine will. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to love, faith served as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained 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 emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to offload 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 exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to accomplish things beyond human capability – 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 interpreted as an affront). With access to real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about building a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.