Our New Sovereign, Our Digital Priest, Our Algorithmic Overlord – The Way AI Returns Us to the Dark Ages.

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the front seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that captures a central dilemma of our era, where technology permeates almost every aspect of existence: who gets our trust more – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the algorithm?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for society was often the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – figures purporting to speak for God's voice. To comprehend natural events like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in religion. In organizing the social world, from commerce to matters of the heart, faith acted as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant maintained that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a more ethical world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app dictating a driving route 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 reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted 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 contemplating a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now among the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The late 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?

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 essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, copying large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to give up autonomy in for the sake of the comforting security of obedience. AI offers a modern method of relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its ability to perform tasks beyond our minds – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my companion (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It generates knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – including its creators acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not merely about productivity – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It fosters confidence, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its promise of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.