🔗 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 suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – 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 "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, 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 slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants 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 … remain in perpetual nonage.”

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital method of surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things beyond our minds – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.