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

This recent season, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that captures a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for society was often the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your reason!”

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant superstition, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical 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 just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent guide that influences our decisions and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern 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 one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be partly explained by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in for the sake of the reassuring certainty of subordination. AI presents 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 – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to trust the app over my friend (a choice she took as an insult). With access to all the data, surely the algorithm must know best – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It generates answers, but not always deepening human understanding. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or handle administrative chores – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not merely about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; 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 unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, 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 machine.