🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a central question of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the social world, from economics to love, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

“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 confidence to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era emerged: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from authority, 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 suggesting a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we let it express for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, 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 understood by a preference to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital method of relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through 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 choice she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

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