🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the app's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical 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 contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of ceding 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 Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a recent study found that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, 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 use of AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. 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 give up personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a digital method of relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a choice 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 opaque system. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. 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 compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.