Our King, Our Priest, Our Feudal Lord – The Way AI Returns Us to the Dark Ages.

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our time, where digital tools touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: logic would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are slipping back into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. AI threatens to become our contemporary authority – a unseen guide that steers our decisions and behaviors. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user queries relate to non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely 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 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 quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction stems from its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. 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 surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to real-time information, surely the app must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be 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, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle administrative chores – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own destinies, and to resist control. It was about building a ethical society based on the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.