🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

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

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, faith served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant argued 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 replace blind faith, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the app over my companion (a decision she took as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we check 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, side with the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about creating a moral community based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.