🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat advised 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 algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he argued, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least 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, copying large sections 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 stems from its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside human capability – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the app over my companion (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? 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.