🔗 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 suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the app's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet 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 A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for divine will. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: logic would supplant superstition, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, 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 lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern method of surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the machine over my companion (a choice she took as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries 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 discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.