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 gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of a southern French city. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a famous spot for bouillabaisse. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the app's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor incident, perhaps. But one that encapsulates a central dilemma of our time, where technology touches almost every aspect of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed immaturity." This immaturity, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's own understanding without direction from another." For centuries, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the king, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel divine will. To comprehend phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people looked for explanations in theology. In organizing the fabric of society, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine acted as the primary guide.

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

Kant argued that humans always possessed the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With revolutions in America and France, a fresh era arrived: logic would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Today, two and a half centuries later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a state of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. AI threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our choices and actions. We are in danger of relinquishing the historically earned autonomy to think independently – and this time, not to gods or kings, but to lines of code.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a recent study indicated that an vast number of people had used AI in the preceding half-year. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for counsel. Research suggests a large majority of user queries relate to personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had access to AI, traditional search engines, or no aids. Those who could use AI showed the lowest brain activity and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, pasting large sections of text.

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

Of course, AI's attraction lies in its efficiency. It is fast, minimizes work and – importantly – offers a novel way to offload accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to give up autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern method of relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the app over my companion (a decision she took as an affront). With access to all the data, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but without necessarily deepening 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 recommendation, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the realm of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that may become our future credo.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, free us from tedious tasks, or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it forces us to argue, to doubt, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both personally and collectively. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the shared principle of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without undermining human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That is likely one of the central dilemmas of our time. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the algorithm.