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 scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I heeded the algorithm's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our era, where technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

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 incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was frequently the clergyman, the king, or the feudal lord – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: logic would supplant superstition, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of people 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 queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Composition is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind everyday tasks. The late 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?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had could use AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the least brain activity and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so many of men … stay in lifelong immaturity.”

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed 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 obedience. AI offers a modern avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the app over my friend (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – 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 realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our 21st-century credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy 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.