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

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and in a stifling car, I followed the algorithm's advice. Minutes later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A minor event, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a defining dilemma of our era, where digital tools permeates almost every aspect of existence: who gets our 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 famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel God's voice. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With revolutions in America and France, a new dawn arrived: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the engine of advancement and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back into a form of dependency. An app dictating a direction is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that steers our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are looking to machines for guidance. 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 express for us. Composition is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, emerging research suggests the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the least cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that over time, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its convenience. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the rise of fascism could be understood by a human tendency to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its ability to accomplish things 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 machine over my companion (a decision she interpreted as an affront). With access to all the data, certainly the algorithm had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a opaque system. It generates knowledge, but not always deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the realm 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 formidable ally for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – work that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about productivity – it was a practice of freedom and human emancipation.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own understanding. It fosters self-reliance, both personally and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own destinies, and to oppose domination. It was about building a ethical society based on the common foundation of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge 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 is likely one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.