🔗 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 advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For ages, that directing force for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the social world, from economics to love, faith served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload accountability. 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 personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed 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 mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone 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 algorithm.