Our King, Our Priest, Our Feudal Lord – The Way AI Returns Us to the Medieval Era.

This recent season, I was caught in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of a southern French city. At a crossing, my companion in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I followed the app's directive. Minutes later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

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

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "is the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – entities purporting to speak for divine will. To comprehend natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in religion. In shaping the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the main compass.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the boldness to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era arrived: logic would supplant superstition, and the human mind, freed from authority, would become the engine of progress and a better world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are slipping back 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 guide that steers our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of relinquishing the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted a mere three years ago, and already a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Research suggests a significant portion of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the top uses for generative AI, just behind everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, participants in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal stems from its convenience. It saves time, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to surrender personal freedom in exchange for the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital method of relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a decision she took as an affront). With access to all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It generates answers, but without necessarily deepening human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we check 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, side with the machine – that could be our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in rational inquiry. It can help inventing drugs, free us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could optimize chores or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to argue, to question, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, 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 lives, and to resist control. It was about building a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the key question is this: how can we leverage its potential of superhuman intelligence without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.