🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, 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 continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures claiming to channel God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it speak 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 purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

“Inertia and fear,” 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 is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks outside human capability – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my companion (a choice she took as an insult). With access to real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, 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.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, 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 would do well not to outsource to the machine.