🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our time, where technology touches 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 famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era emerged: logic would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that steers our choices and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a global survey found that an vast number of respondents 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 counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. 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 argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a digital method of relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks outside human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the app over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but not always fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.