🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central question of our era, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a modern method of relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through oceans of data 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 insult). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, 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 century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.