Our New Sovereign, Our Digital Priest, Our Algorithmic Overlord – The Way AI Returns Us to the Medieval Era.

This past summer, I found myself navigating in congested traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my friend in the passenger seat suggested a right turn toward a famous spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Weary and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a construction site.

A minor event, maybe. But one that captures a defining question of our time, where technology touches nearly every facet of existence: whom do we trust more – other people 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 "man's release from its self-inflicted nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the inability to use one's personal reason without guidance from another." For centuries, that directing force for society was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – figures purporting to channel divine will. To explain phenomena like changing seasons, people sought answers in theology. In organizing the social world, 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 had the ability to think rationally. They simply lacked the confidence to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn emerged: reason would replace superstition, and the human mind, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of progress and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might wonder if we are quietly regressing into a form of dependency. An app suggesting a direction is merely the start. AI risks becoming our new "other" – a silent guide that influences our decisions and behaviors. We risk ceding the historically earned courage to reason for ourselves – and now, not to gods or kings, but to computer programs.

The Swift Adoption and Hidden Risks of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched only in 2022, and already a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of people had engaged with artificial intelligence in the preceding half-year. Whether contemplating ending a relationship or choosing a candidate, individuals are looking to machines for counsel. Data suggests a large majority of user prompts relate to non-work topics. Even more striking than our reliance on AI for judgment is what occurs when we let it express for us. Writing is now one of the most common uses for tools like ChatGPT, second only to practical requests. The late American author Joan Didion famously said, “I write entirely to discover what I am thinking.” What transpires when we stop composing? Do we cease discovering?

Worryingly, some evidence hints the answer may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to observe the mental engagement of essay writers who had access to AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could use AI displayed the lowest brain activity and had trouble quoting their own work. Maybe most troubling was that after a few months, participants in the AI group became progressively lazier, pasting 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 convenience. It saves time, reduces effort and – importantly – offers a new method to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm argued that the appeal of authoritarianism could be partly explained by a preference to give up personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a modern method of surrendering the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Faith Over Reason

AI's greatest allure is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing oceans of data at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the machine over my companion (a choice she took as an insult). With knowledge of all the data, surely the algorithm had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but not always deepening human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its conclusions – including its programmers acknowledge the opacity. Nor can we verify its logic against clear, objective criteria. So when we heed AI's advice, we are not being guided by reason. We are returning to the realm of belief. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, trust the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Using Without Losing: The Critical Balance

AI can be a powerful tool for mankind in scientific pursuit. It can help inventing drugs, liberate us from "bullshit jobs", or manage administrative chores – work that are repetitive and offer little satisfaction. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for enlightenment just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Critical thinking was not just about efficiency – it was a discipline of liberty and human emancipation.

Human thought is often chaotic and error-prone, but it compels us to argue, to doubt, to test ideas – and to acknowledge the boundaries of our own understanding. It builds self-reliance, both individually and collectively. For Kant, the use of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become authors of their own lives, and to resist control. It was about creating a moral community grounded in the common foundation of reason and debate, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the undeniable benefits AI offers, the paramount challenge is this: how can we leverage its potential of advanced capability without eroding human rationality, 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 delegate to the algorithm.