🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where technology touches almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For ages, that directing force for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the social world, from economics to love, faith served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a fresh era emerged: reason would supplant blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our choices and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It saves time, 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 rise of fascism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – 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 decision she interpreted as an affront). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It produces answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed 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 guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought 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 debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the machine.