Our King, Our Priest, Our Feudal Lord – How AI Is Taking Us Back 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 companion in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for bouillabaisse. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to go forward. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor incident, maybe. But one that captures a defining question of our era, where technology permeates nearly every facet of our lives: who gets our trust to a greater degree – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant once defined the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed immaturity." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's own understanding without direction from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was often the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel God's voice. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In shaping the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, religious doctrine served as the primary guide.

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

Kant maintained that humans had the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With revolutions in the 18th century, a fresh era emerged: logic would replace blind faith, and the intellect, liberated from authority, would become the engine of advancement and a better world.

Today, 250 years later, one might wonder 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 silent overseer that influences our choices and actions. We risk relinquishing the hard-won autonomy to reason for ourselves – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a recent study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents had engaged with artificial intelligence in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or selecting a vote, individuals are increasingly turning to machines for guidance. Data suggests a large majority of user queries concern personal life matters. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we let it express for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to find out what I am thinking.” What occurs when we stop composing? Do we lose that path?

Worryingly, some evidence suggests the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to track the cognitive activity of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or no aids. Those who could rely on AI showed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most concerning was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

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

Of course, AI's appeal lies in its efficiency. It is fast, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to offload responsibility. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a human tendency to surrender autonomy in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital method of relinquishing the weight of having to decide for oneself.

The Opacity Dilemma: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to perform tasks outside our minds – sifting through vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, after all, why I chose to believe the app over my friend (a choice she took as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, certainly the app must know best – or so I believed.

The fundamental problem is that AI operates as a black box. It produces knowledge, but not always fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know the process behind its conclusions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed 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, side with the machine – that may become our future credo.

Using Without Losing: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage administrative chores – work that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his contemporaries did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could optimize chores or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic 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 self-reliance, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about information; it was about enabling people to become agents of their own destinies, and to oppose control. It was about building a ethical society grounded in the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than blind belief.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy itself? That may be one of the defining questions of our century. It is a question we would do well not to outsource to the machine.