🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: logic would replace superstition, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that influences our choices and actions. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal 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 surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks outside human capability – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, surely the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of faith. 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 scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a ethical society based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.