🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that captures a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that steers our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Writing is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way 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 preference to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. 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 could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool 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. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.