🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the social world, from commerce to love, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: logic would supplant superstition, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey found 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 guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it speak 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 once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside human capability – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of faith. 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 formidable ally for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about creating a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.