🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that captures a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures claiming to channel divine will. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, 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?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew 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.”

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – 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 surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents a digital method of relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the app over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to 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 mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about building a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.