🔗 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 front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where technology permeates nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the social world, from commerce to love, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a fresh era emerged: logic would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we let 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 famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside human capability – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with 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 help medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, 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 may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.