🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where technology touches almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that steers our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we allow it express for us. Writing is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … remain in perpetual nonage.”

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, 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 rise of fascism could be partly explained by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things 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 app over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, 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 could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – duties 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. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and collectively. 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 oppose control. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.