Our King, Our Priest, Our Feudal Lord – How AI Is Taking Us Back to the Dark Ages.

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone instructed us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

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

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he argued, "is the incapacity to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For ages, that directing force for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that influences our choices and behaviors. We risk relinquishing the historically earned courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. 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?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Maybe most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … remain in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate 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 preference to surrender personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a modern method of surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an insult). With access to real-time information, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we check its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its promise of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.