🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching 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. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question of our era, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – 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-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the social world, from commerce to love, faith served as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen overseer that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

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 preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be yes. 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 nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload 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 surrender autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a modern method of relinquishing the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things beyond our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my friend (a choice she took as an insult). With access to real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but not always deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers admit this. Nor can we check 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 faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.