🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor event, perhaps. 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 – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

“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 the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace superstition, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen overseer that steers our choices and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a recent study found that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it express for us. Writing is now one of 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 occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying large sections 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 convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. 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 give up personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of 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 generates knowledge, but not always fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to test ideas – 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 only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.