🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that captures a defining question of our time, where technology touches nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations 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 argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace superstition, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that steers our choices and behaviors. We risk ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the machine over my friend (a choice she took as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores 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 question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about creating a ethical society based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question is this: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.