🔗 Share this article

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

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of our lives: 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 influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel divine will. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to love, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting 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 think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

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

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 argued that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

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

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow 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, trust the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: 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 handle administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries 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 practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both personally 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 control. It was about creating a ethical society based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.