🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that captures a defining question of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel divine will. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen overseer that influences our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence hints 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 rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to offload 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 surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern method of relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my companion (a choice she interpreted as an affront). With access to all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge 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 enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

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