🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that steers our choices and behaviors. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study found that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … remain in perpetual nonage.”

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. 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 believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in 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 formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge 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 acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.