🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries 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 threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – 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 partly explained by a preference to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital method of surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – 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 challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a ethical society based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.