🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's directive. 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 permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities claiming to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to love, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your reason!”

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 fresh era emerged: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, freed 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 slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen overseer that influences our choices and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study found that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. 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 non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the lowest brain activity and had difficulty quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It saves time, 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 rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the app over my companion (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about building a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.