🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I heeded the app's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that captures a defining question of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the driver 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 dictating a direction is merely the start. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that influences our decisions and actions. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying 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 convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to give up autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks outside human capability – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.