Our King, Our Priest, Our Feudal Lord – How AI Is Taking Us Back to the Medieval Era.

This past summer, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the scorching streets of Marseille. At a crossing, my companion in the passenger seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the navigation app on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and in a stifling car, I heeded the app's advice. Minutes later, we were stranded at a construction site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our time, where technology touches almost every aspect of our lives: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our own intuition, or the algorithm?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-inflicted nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "is the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities claiming to channel divine will. To explain natural events like changing seasons, people looked for explanations in theology. In shaping the social world, from economics to love, faith acted as the primary guide.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant argued that humans had the capacity for reason. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With upheavals in the 18th century, a new dawn emerged: reason would replace blind faith, and the human mind, liberated 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 quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a silent overseer that influences our decisions and actions. We risk ceding the hard-won courage to think independently – and now, not to deities or rulers, but to computer programs.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and yet a global survey indicated that an vast number of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user queries concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we allow it express for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to everyday tasks. The celebrated American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be affirmative. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of participants who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had difficulty quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group grew progressively lazier, copying 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 appeal stems from its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – critically – offers a new method 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 give up personal freedom in for the sake of the comforting security of subordination. AI presents a digital avenue for surrendering the burden of having to think and choose.

The Opacity Dilemma: Trust Without Understanding

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to accomplish things beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets at lightning pace. Sitting in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the machine over my companion (a choice she took as an insult). With access to all the data, surely the app must know best – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI operates as a black box. It generates knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We cannot fully grasp the process behind its conclusions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we check its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we follow AI's recommendation, we are not being guided by reason. We are back in the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in rational inquiry. It can aid in medical research, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – duties that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not champion reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have more leisure. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a practice of freedom and human self-determination.

Human thought is inherently messy and error-prone, but it compels us to debate, to question, to test ideas – and to recognize the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds confidence, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never solely about acquiring knowledge; it was about enabling people to become authors of their own lives, and to oppose control. It was about building a moral community grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question is this: how can we harness its potential of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of free societies themselves? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the algorithm.