🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I heeded the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central question of our time, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he argued, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the social world, from commerce to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, participants 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 perpetual nonage.”

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about building a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.