🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that captures a defining question of our time, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen overseer that influences our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely 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 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, 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 partly explained by a preference to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to all the data, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. 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 back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores 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 compels us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.