🔗 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 front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools 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 once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen overseer that steers our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things outside human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the machine over my companion (a choice she interpreted as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about building a moral community based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.