Our New Sovereign, Our Digital Priest, Our Algorithmic Overlord – 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 friend in the front seat suggested a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. However, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the app's advice. Moments later, we were stranded at a roadwork site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a central dilemma of our era, where technology touches almost every aspect of existence: whom do we trust to a greater degree – fellow humans and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and Our Modern Relapse

The renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "man's release from its self-imposed nonage." This immaturity, he argued, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without direction from an external source." For centuries, that directing force for human thought was often the clergyman, the monarch, or the feudal lord – entities purporting to speak for God's voice. To explain natural events like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the fabric of society, from commerce 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 always possessed the ability to think rationally. They just didn't have the boldness to employ it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn emerged: reason would supplant blind faith, and the intellect, freed from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a more ethical world.

Now, two and a half centuries later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a state of dependency. An app dictating a direction is merely the start. Artificial intelligence risks becoming our contemporary authority – a unseen overseer that influences our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding 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 Algorithmic Reliance

ChatGPT debuted only in 2022, and yet a global survey found that an vast number of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for counsel. Data suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what occurs when we let it speak for us. Writing is now among the top uses for tools like ChatGPT, just behind practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we cease writing? Do we lose that path?

Alarmingly, some evidence suggests the outcome may be yes. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used brain monitoring to observe the cognitive activity of participants who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI displayed the lowest cognitive engagement and had trouble quoting their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that after a few months, individuals in the AI group became increasingly reliant, pasting large sections of text.

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

Certainly, AI's attraction stems from its efficiency. It saves time, reduces effort and – critically – 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 human tendency to give up autonomy in exchange for the comforting security of obedience. AI presents a modern avenue for relinquishing the burden of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's primary draw is its ability to accomplish things outside our minds – sifting through oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to trust the app over my friend (a choice she interpreted as an insult). With access to all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I thought.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It generates answers, but without necessarily fostering human comprehension. We do not truly know how AI reaches its conclusions – including its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its logic against transparent standards. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are back in the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our future guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a formidable ally for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, free us from "bullshit jobs", or handle taxes – duties that demand little thought and offer little satisfaction. All to the good. But Kant and his peers did not champion enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a practice of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it forces us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to recognize the limits of our own knowledge. It builds self-reliance, both personally and as a society. 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 domination. It was about creating a ethical society grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than blind belief.

With all the advantages AI brings, the paramount challenge is this: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without eroding human reasoning, the cornerstone of the Enlightenment and of free societies itself? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we must strive not to outsource to the algorithm.