🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the historically earned courage to think independently – 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 yet a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts 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. Writing is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The celebrated 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, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a modern method of relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my companion (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers 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 inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.