🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where technology touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the confidence to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our decisions and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now one of the most common 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 transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a digital method of surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks outside human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – 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 more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding 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 would do well not to outsource to the machine.