🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. 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 instructed us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – figures purporting to speak for divine will. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to love, 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 boldness to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a unseen overseer that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a global survey found that an vast number of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it express 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 famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It is fast, 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 rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the app over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to all the data, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, 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 may become our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – work 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 more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.