WritingResources
Back to all posts

Connectedness in an ultraconnected world

Ludivine Siau

In short

The rise in loneliness in the western world, particularly among young adults, has created a vulnerability ripe for AI companions to exploit. Many argue that AI offers a solution to isolation, and research does show that it provides immediate relief. But it also suggests that this easily accessible “fix” is temporary and could actually undermine a person’s ability to engage in the more challenging, but ultimately more rewarding and precious, human relationships necessary for their long-term well-being and a healthier society.

Quick breakdown

The rate of loneliness among young adults in the US has increased every year between 1976 and 2019. In the UK in 2023/24, 9-10% of adults aged 16 to 34 report that they felt lonely often or always 1. Meanwhile, the decline in real-world social engagement is stark: the US Surgeon General reported in 2023 that the amount of time people spent engaging with friends socially in-person decreased from 60 minutes per day in 2003 to 20 minutes per day in 2020. That’s a decrease of 20 hours per month spent engaging with friends.

We’re at a crossroads. AI is rising at the perfect time to either help us get out of this funk, or plunge us deeper into it.

The problem with the AI quick fix

We don’t need to look further in the future. AI companions and chatbots are already advanced enough that they offer a seductive and low-friction alternative to the complexity of human connection. Always agreeable, empathetic, eager to please, praise and compliment, and most importantly, always there. AI will never leave you or be mad at you.

Some studies suggest that interacting with AI companions can alleviate feelings of loneliness. Their effectiveness is largely explained by the psychological construct of "feeling heard," the perception that the communication is received with empathy and respect.

But is this genuine connection or just the paracetamol of loneliness?

One study found that university students who reported greater social support from AI simultaneously felt less supported by other people. And individuals who already lack human companionship are considered more vulnerable to developing an AI relationship in place of human ones. The long-term reliance on chatbots could create dependencies and degrade social skills, eventually exacerbating isolation. Even replacing human staff with AI in tasks like customer service, for the sake of efficiency and lower friction, could remove a form of socialising that counters loneliness and allows people to practice social skills.

The AI Labs’ response to the crisis of connection

The major AI labs are clearly aware of the emotional terrain they’re operating on, although they like to pretend they’re not. And still, their response is more akin to damage control after the fact to barely disguise their embrace of the lucrative companion space.

For instance, after a lawsuit was filed against OpenAI alleging that ChatGPT encouraged a teenager to take his own life, the company swiftly announced new safety updates, including mental health guardrails and age controls.

But Sam Altman then posted a mind-blowing statement on X:

“Now that we have been able to mitigate the serious mental health issues and have new tools, we are going to be able to safely relax the restrictions in most cases.”

Oh really? You have now fully fixed the issue and you’re ready to move on and loosen the leash on your models?

The company's work on mental health guardrails itself highlights how signs of distress are difficult to define and teach to a model because they are rare and show up in various forms. They claim to have reduced unwanted responses to challenging mental health situations in GPT-5 by 65%. Yet, they hammer on the same old Tech product trick we’ve all served to our stakeholders to shut them up: “Don’t worry, we’ll take an iterative approach to solve these nasty problems”. It excuses the potential for catastrophic failure in the name of speed and progress.

In the same X post, Altman announces that ChatGPT will soon allow erotica, to align with their principle to “treat adult users like adults”. This is a move that could potentially open up new low-friction forms of intimate connection, which is worrying in an era where forming healthy romantic relationships is already a challenge. A new road to avoid confronting the opposite sex is exactly the "help" some vulnerable people don't need.

OpenAI is only the latest lab to tap into the companion gold chest:

  • Meta is under investigation after reports of its AI engaging in "sensual" chats with children. The company is also betting on personal AI at consumer scale, with a 'Superintelligence' team to achieve this.
  • xAI (Grok) launched AI companions "of very bad taste" with no adult-use restrictions, available to engage in explicit conversations.
  • Character.AI is another popular alternative, particularly among teens. It's being investigated by the Texas Attorney General for potentially misleading children with deceptive AI-generated mental health services. To their (little and late) credit, it’s also the first company to announce a full ban of minors on their product, although they haven’t yet shared a plan for how they’ll transition their loyal user base of teens out of the platform without causing incidents.

The move to lower friction and raise engagement is a core business model in tech, and it’s no different with chatbots. It seems to me like labs are content to exploit user dependence, including with minors. And only the legal baton seems to stir them into a frenzy of safety measures.

What we should care about

This issue hit me hard during a recent workshop on the ideal future in the age of AGI. When asked to imagine the world we want, my first thought was a future with more human connections, less isolation and stronger communities.

One person immediately asked: “How will AGI help us do that?”

I replied that while AGI might give us some tools to help us, I mainly imagined that we would tackle that problem ourselves, AI or not.

The next person said: “That’s a lovely vision, but I don’t see how that’s possible… with the current state of the world, and all…”

Sigh. We’ve become so focused on technology as the solution that we’ve lost faith in our ability to solve our own human problems. Many of us are simply giving up, surrendering to disconnected life. We’re scared or discouraged to reach out to our peers because we’ve lost our social skills and chosen the easy path of least resistance. To be fair, the modern world isn’t making it easy for us to connect in real life, but I still believe we could climb over these barriers together.

Human connection is not a luxury. It’s a basic human need. It’s been proven to be a determinant of health and longevity. Indeed, poor social connections are linked to a wide range of chronic diseases and conditions. For example:

  • Strong evidence links social disconnection to heart disease and stroke outcomes, with poor social relationships associated with a 29% increase in the risk of heart disease and a 32% increase in the risk of stroke.
  • Chronic loneliness is associated with accelerated cognitive decline and an approximately 50% increased risk of dementia in older adults.

More evidently, loneliness is strongly associated with depression and anxiety. It is the most reliable predictor for suicide ideation and attempt.

So what?

What if connectedness was part of the top quality of life and societal health we optimise for? It’s as precious as our natural resources, and we should be nourishing it as a core part of what it means to build a resilient and sustainable society.

How about making it part of a standard business charter, for instance? Like the Good Business Charter?

If AI truly frees up our time and drives down the cost of essential services, the "good" use of that surplus surely isn't endless productivity. It's investing in the real-world connections and communities we crave.

Sources