🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the app's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question of our time, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to channel divine will. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would supplant superstition, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that influences our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

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 contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind 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, emerging research hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the least brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a decision she took as an affront). With access to real-time information, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. 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 argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about building a moral community grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its potential 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 time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.