🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the app's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our time, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he argued, "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 landowner – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the social world, from commerce to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … remain in perpetual nonage.”

Certainly, AI's attraction 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 rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting 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 knowledge of all the data, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. 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 champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about building a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the key question remains: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.