🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For ages, that directing force for human thought was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the social world, from economics to love, faith served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority 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 counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs 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 brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, 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 convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. 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 surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a choice she took as an affront). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, 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 may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion 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 emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community 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 leverage its potential of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.