🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures claiming to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We risk ceding the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

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

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

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties 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 more leisure. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question is this: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.