🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked 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. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded 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 incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel divine will. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn emerged: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a global survey found that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the answer may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload 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 human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the machine over my companion (a choice she took as an affront). With access to real-time information, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It produces answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about building a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.