🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded 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 encapsulates a defining question of our era, where technology touches almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a global survey found that an vast number of people 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 machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a preference to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about building a moral community grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone 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 delegate to the algorithm.