🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion 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 heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – other people 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, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to channel divine will. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: logic would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our decisions and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are looking 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 occurs when we let it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a preference to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks outside our minds – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. 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 insult). With access to real-time information, surely the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, 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 assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a discipline 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 limits of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.