🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that captures a defining question of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that steers our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study found that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the lowest brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, 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 appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the app over my companion (a choice she took as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know 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 led by logic. We are returning to 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 Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both personally 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 oppose control. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.