🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, 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. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our time, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, faith 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 just didn't have the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – 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 partly explained by a preference to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle 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 assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only 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 reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.