🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel divine will. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the social world, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare 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 fresh era arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won courage to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. 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 give up personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate 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 advocate for 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 freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about building a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.