🔗 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 suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central question of our time, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – figures claiming to channel divine will. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. 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 reason!”

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: logic would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question 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 contemporary authority – a silent guide that steers our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

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 overwhelming majority of people had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload accountability. 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 surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a digital method of surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things outside our minds – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a choice she took as an insult). With access to all the data, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human understanding. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about building a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.