🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was often the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: logic would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that influences our choices and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work 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 understood by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to accomplish things outside our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the machine over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify 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 realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about building a ethical society based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.