🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central question of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that steers our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned 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 AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of participants 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. Maybe most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed 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 may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – work that are repetitive 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 extra free time. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question remains: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.