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

This recent season, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the app's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central question of our era, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust more – other people and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from another." For ages, that directing force for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, faith acted as the main compass.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app suggesting a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and yet a global survey found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for judgment is what happens when we let it speak for us. Writing is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

“Laziness and cowardice,” 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 saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a modern method of relinquishing the burden of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things beyond our minds – analyzing oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I opted to trust the machine over my companion (a choice she took as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to debate, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It fosters confidence, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, 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 undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge remains: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.