🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet 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 famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was often the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, faith acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet 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 choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs 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 once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, participants 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 … remain in perpetual nonage.”

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital method of relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things outside our minds – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but not always deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of belief. 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 powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. 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 efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both personally 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 destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a moral community based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.