🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, faith served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that steers our choices and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a global survey found that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Writing is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … remain in perpetual nonage.”

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in 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 proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the app over my friend (a decision she took as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the key question is this: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining 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 would do well not to outsource to the machine.