🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question of our time, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For ages, that directing force for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, 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 stems from its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate 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 give up personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw 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 took as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about building a moral community based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.