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 sweltering streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. However, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the app's directive. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: who gets our 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 once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-inflicted immaturity." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the priest, the king, or the landowner – entities claiming to speak for divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to love, faith acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to employ it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress 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 dictating a driving route is just one example. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen overseer that steers our decisions and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a recent study found that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for advice is what happens when we allow it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a modern method of relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to trust the machine over my friend (a decision she took as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a opaque system. It produces answers, but not always fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – including its programmers admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the domain of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. 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. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about information; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to resist domination. It was about creating a ethical society based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without eroding 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 must strive not to outsource to the machine.