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

This past summer, I was caught in congested traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion 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. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the app's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our time, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – other people and our own intuition, or the machine?

A Call for Intellectual Maturity and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the clergyman, the king, or the landowner – figures claiming to channel divine will. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to love, faith served as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would replace superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a silent overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study indicated that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we allow it speak for us. Writing is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by 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 use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became increasingly reliant, copying entire blocks 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 lies in its convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI offers a modern method of surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through oceans of data at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With knowledge of real-time information, certainly the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a opaque system. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. 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 Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. 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. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to doubt, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both individually 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 oppose control. It was about building a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.