🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our time, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was often the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn emerged: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical 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. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk ceding 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 only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an vast number of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts relate to personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Composition is now among the top uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things outside our minds – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the machine over my friend (a choice she took 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 operates as a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but not always deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a moral community based on the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, 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 may be one of the central dilemmas of our century. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the algorithm.