🔗 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 companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that captures a central question of our time, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the social world, from economics to love, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that steers our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe 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 trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate 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 human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

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

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture 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 debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise 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 ethical society grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.