🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the app's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined 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 guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and already a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to surrender autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through 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 decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.