🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he wrote, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: reason would supplant superstition, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a driving route is merely the start. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that steers our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a recent study indicated that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to algorithms for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it express for us. Writing is now one of the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling 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 … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Certainly, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI offers a digital method of relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the app over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – duties that demand little thought 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 efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.