🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that captures a defining question of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust to a greater degree – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For ages, that directing force for society was often the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to love, faith served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. 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 most common uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be yes. 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, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. 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 give up autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – including its programmers 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 belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist domination. It was about building a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.