🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to love, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: reason would supplant superstition, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it speak for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern method of relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe 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 believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – even 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 led by logic. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally 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 resist domination. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.