🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial event, perhaps. But one that captures a defining question of our time, where digital tools touches nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

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 state, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to love, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is merely the start. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study found that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. 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?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” 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 saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method 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 surrender autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). 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 – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. 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, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling 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 unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the key question is this: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.