🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our time, where technology permeates almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to channel divine will. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is just one example. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey found that an vast number of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a new method to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to give up personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things outside human capability – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It produces answers, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed 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 may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about creating a ethical society based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.