🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where technology permeates almost every aspect of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For ages, that directing force for human thought was often the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to speak for divine will. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. 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 reason!”

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of 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 was launched only in 2022, and yet a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group became 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 efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside our minds – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the machine over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an affront). With access to all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – 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 just about productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, 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 exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.