Artificial Intelligence and the Temptation of a New Immaturity:
What the Enlightenment Teaches Us About ChatGPT & Co.
Anyone who has known me for a while, or simply knows me a little better, will know that my path into the world of technology took a rather unexpected detour. After completing my degree in computer science, I spent several semesters studying literature and philosophy. I owe that largely to my girlfriend at the time. Unfortunately, neither the relationship nor those studies seemed, at first, to promise much of a future.
Or perhaps they did. Although it felt like a detour at the time, those years have stayed with me ever since. Whenever I find myself discussing the latest advances in generative AI, large language models (LLMs) or autonomous agents, I instinctively draw parallels with the great thinkers of the Enlightenment.
Because once we look beyond the current hype surrounding ChatGPT and the like, one thing quickly becomes clear: today’s debates about artificial intelligence are, at their core, centuries-old philosophical questions about what it means to think and to judge for ourselves.
“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.”
When Immanuel Kant wrote those famous words in 1784, he was referring to the social, religious and intellectual authorities to whom people willingly delegated responsibility for their own thinking. More than 240 years later, we are confronted with a new kind of guardian: one that is digital, responds within seconds and goes by the name of Artificial Intelligence.
1. Immanuel Kant: The Algorithmic Invitation to Convenience
Kant defined immaturity as the inability to make use of one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. He captured the problem with remarkable clarity:
“If I have a book which understands for me … I need not think, if only I can pay; others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.”
Replace the word book with AI model, and the passage describes one of the defining risks of today’s workplace with striking precision. We ask AI to draft our emails, outline proposals, generate software code and summarise reports. Technology becomes an ever-present digital guardian, relieving us of the “irksome work” of thinking.
The paradox is obvious. AI has the potential to free us from repetitive tasks. Yet our self-incurred immaturity begins the moment we stop examining its answers with a critical mind.
2. Denis Diderot: The Oracle versus the Encyclopédie
To free people from ignorance, the French Enlightenment pursued what was, for its time, a revolutionary idea: making knowledge accessible to everyone. Through his famous Encyclopédie, Denis Diderot launched what was arguably the most ambitious project of knowledge democratisation in eighteenth-century Europe. His aim was simple: to enable people to think critically for themselves.
Modern large language models represent, in many ways, the fulfilment of Diderot’s boldest dream. They place an extraordinary body of human knowledge within seconds’ reach.
Yet we are witnessing a troubling inversion. Whereas the Encyclopédie was intended to stimulate independent thought, we increasingly use AI as a shortcut that allows us to avoid thinking altogether.
When we elevate AI to the status of an all-knowing oracle, we transform Diderot’s instrument of intellectual emancipation into one of digital dependency. In the age of artificial intelligence, intellectual maturity means treating language models as extraordinarily powerful encyclopaedias, not as infallible sources of truth.
3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Risk of Technological Alienation
Diderot’s contemporary, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was deeply sceptical of his era’s faith in progress. In his Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts, he argued that scientific and technological progress does not necessarily liberate humanity; it can also alienate us from our own nature.
Applied to the present day, Rousseau’s warning feels remarkably relevant. As we navigate an ever-growing stream of AI-generated texts, images and decisions, perfectly polished, yet ultimately no more than statistical predictions, we risk a more profound form of alienation.
We may gradually lose what lies at the heart of human judgement: consciousness, moral reflection, empathy and intuition.
The real danger is not that AI thinks for us. It begins when we stop exercising our own judgement. Because the true measure of intellectual freedom is not generating an answer, but placing it in context, questioning it and accepting responsibility for it.
Conclusion: Sapere Aude in the Digital Age
Artificial intelligence does not inevitably condemn us to a new form of immaturity. What it does is test our willingness to think for ourselves. Whether it helps us reach new intellectual heights or lulls us into a new form of digital complacency depends entirely on how we choose to use it.
Kant’s Enlightenment motto has never been more relevant:
Sapere aude!
Have the courage to use your own understanding.
Let us use artificial intelligence to broaden our horizons, free up time for what truly matters and deepen our thinking, rather than surrendering our judgement to algorithms.
Where do you think the line lies between making good use of AI and the gradual erosion of our own capacity for judgement?
From Philosophy to Practice
Automate processes – not responsibility.
One simple principle has consistently proven its value across our AI and automation projects: if a task follows clear rules, processes data or prepares drafts, AI can often perform it faster and more reliably than humans.
However, when decisions carry significant consequences or require judgement, experience and accountability, the final decision should remain with people.
The most sustainable digital solutions emerge precisely at this intersection between efficiency and human judgement.
If you’re wondering where that boundary lies within your own organisation, we’d be delighted to explore it with you.
