🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he argued, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would supplant superstition, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched 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 contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it speak for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed 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 increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside human capability – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the app over my companion (a choice she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It produces answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.