🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For ages, that directing force for human thought was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to love, faith acted as the primary guide.

“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 confidence to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a fresh era emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, 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 suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – 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 yet a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to give up personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the machine over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we check 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 belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about building a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock 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 outsource to the algorithm.