In the midst of debates about the risks and fears of artificial intelligence, the movements between sensationalism and the opportunity for many companies to grow their seedlings (we know this well in the communications media industry), it is not worth overlooking another fundamental issue associated with the rise of artificial intelligence: the dehumanization of relationships with machines – and including interpersonal relationships mediated by their own technology –.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the gradual displacement of the spaces in which these relationships are built, in this form, the need for bonding remains intact, while the interaction that supported it is reduced, fragmented, or outright externalized have systems that contain much of this associated material.
At this early stage of this technology, it is not a question of deciding whether the AI is human or dehumanized until it is understood that the relationship map is being reorganized.to concentrate man on certain points and to colonize all of them. A phenomenon that, of course, happens with a coherence that can only be appreciated when one deals with things that in aerial form appear to point in different directions, but which when combined reveal a fairly consistent pattern.
For example, in the consumer sector, Gartner reports that 50% of users declare that they prefer brands that avoid using artificial generative intelligence in visible packaging, while 68% admit that they doubt the authenticity of what they see on the Internetthereby turning suspicion into a basal phase of the digital experience. At the same time, in the B2B sector, 67% of buyers opt for non-commercial experiences, removing much of the process for humans.
However, in the personal sphere more than the average people globally admit to using artificial intelligence systems for emotional support, 43% of them agree that they would rather talk to these systems first than search for them, 28% say they have shared vulnerabilities with a chatbot and 17% admit that they occasionally prefer interacting with these systems over other people. Many make dramatic headlines about certain cases where these interactions have led to fatal illnesses, but this is another man who requires a much more careful and suspended analysis.
Going back to the core of what we do today, this transformation of human relationships is particularly evident among young people, where 72% use chatbots as their companions, 33% recognize some type of relationship with and around them. 10% is worth considering that these conversations are more satisfying than being conducted with peopleAlthough other studies point to the fact that one of you is an adult, do not underestimate the possibility of developing an emotional connection to systems of this type.
Without seeking satisfaction, we must allow this change in the distribution of time because human interaction does not disappear, but must occupy an equal volume within everyday experience, and this has profound implications that go far beyond efficiency or automation. Artificial intelligence penetrates those spaces where there is interaction between people for a strictly instrumental purpose, in this low-intensity exchange that is the sedimentation of trust, recognition, and ultimately bonding, and it does this by offering something that is difficult to match from an operational point of view: constant availability, no juice, reduced emotional cost of interaction and an immediate response that eliminates latency and simplifies the experience.
Empire, the point appears when you notice that the same artificiality that the user accepts and even incorporates into his personal sphere as a space for seamless interaction causes a reaction when it is visible in the discussion of the brand, because what is being discussed is not the functionality of the technology, until now legitimate, as you say, your ability to be seen as authentic in an environment where suspicion forms part of the starting point. The same user who returns to conversational systems to avoid suicide or inconvenience gives up when there is nothing more than a robot on the other end of corporate communication, forcing him to distinguish between two agendas that the dominant narrative tends to mix into an interesting form: interaction as a process and relationship as a symbolic construction.
Bez obviar que este displazamiento, además, no ocurre en el vacío, sinno sobre una base de que the fragility of bonds was an earlier realitywith the significant traits of a population that recognizes the sense of loneliness embedded in the people around us, so AI doesn’t introduce the need for connection until it’s embedded, offering a low-cost, low-value alternative. Of course, some studies point to this correlation between heavy use of conversational systems and higher levels of happiness or emotional dependence: We are not satisfied with this partial replacement, which reduces exposure to human interaction in certain contexts.
I don’t want to fall into alarmism and I don’t want to give up certain conclusions. It’s just a reflection on the possibility of a clearer separation between what we consider valuable and what we practice day in and day out, with AI merely a technological excuse in this transformation. And worry, I think is quite human the connection is human, while the actual interaction is mediated primarily with machines. Dystopian and disturbing in equal parts, but more believable from what I saw.
Leave a Reply