🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide 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 seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central question of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel divine will. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith served 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 simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen overseer that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we let it express for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate 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 exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: 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 app over my companion (a choice she took as an affront). With access to all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

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 collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a ethical society based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.