🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question 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 A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures purporting to speak for God's voice. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant argued 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 fresh era emerged: reason would supplant superstition, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking 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, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – 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 partly explained by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside human capability – 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 friend (a decision she took 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 produces answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

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

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces 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 exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about creating a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question remains: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? 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.