🔗 Share this article

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone instructed us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where technology touches nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

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 nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to channel divine will. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from commerce to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted 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 new dawn emerged: logic would supplant superstition, and the intellect, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. AI risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the historically earned courage to think independently – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Research suggests a large majority of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it express for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became 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 appeal stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to give up personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a modern avenue for surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things beyond human capability – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to believe the machine over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It produces answers, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow 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, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers 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 liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about building a ethical society based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question remains: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to delegate to the machine.