Humanizing AI: Humanizing AI could lead us to dehumanize ourselves

For most of our history, we believed empathy It was a uniquely human trait: a special ability that set us apart from machines and other animals. But this belief is now being questioned.

As AI becomes a more important part of our lives, entering even our most intimate spheres, we face a philosophical conundrum: could attributing human qualities to AI diminish our own human essence? Our research suggests it can.

Digitizing fellowship

In recent years, AI “companion” apps, such as Replika, have attracted millions of users. Replika allows users to create personalized digital partners to engage in intimate conversations. Members who pay for Replika Pro can even turn their AI into a “romantic partner.” Physical AI Companions They are not left behind. Companies like JoyLoveDolls sell interactive sex robots with customizable features including breast size, ethnicity, movement, and AI responses such as moaning and flirting.

Discover the stories of your interest

While it is currently a niche market, history suggests that today’s digital trends will become tomorrow’s global norms. With approximately one in four adults feeling lonely, the demand for AI companions will grow.

The dangers of humanizing AI

Humans have long attributed human traits to non-human entities, a trend known as anthropomorphism.

It’s no surprise that we’re doing this with AI tools like ChatGPT, which appear to “think” and “feel.” But why is it a problem to humanize AI?

For one thing, it allows AI companies to exploit our tendency to form bonds with human-like entities. Replika markets itself as “the AI ​​companion that cares.”

However, to avoid legal issues, the company notes elsewhere that Replika is not responsive and simply learns through millions of user interactions.

Some AI companies openly claim that their AI assistants have empathy and can even anticipate human needs. Such claims are misleading and can take advantage of people looking for companionship. Users can become deeply emotionally involved if they believe their AI companion truly understands them.

This raises serious ethical concerns. A user will hesitate to eliminate (i.e., “abandon” or “kill”) their AI companion once they have attributed some form of sentience to them.

But what happens when said companion disappears unexpectedly, for example if the user can no longer afford it or if the company that manages it goes out of business? While the partner may not be real, the feelings attributed to him or her are.

Empathy: more than a programmable output

By reducing empathy to a programmable output, do we risk diminishing its true essence? To answer this, let’s first think about what empathy really is.

Empathy involves responding to other people with understanding and concern. It’s when you share your friend’s pain as they tell you their pain, or when you feel the joy radiating from someone you care about. It is a deep, rich experience that goes beyond simple forms of measurement.

A fundamental difference between humans and AI is that humans actually feel emotions, while AI can only simulate them. This touches on the difficult problem of consciousness, which questions how subjective human experiences arise from physical processes in the brain.

While AI can simulate understanding, any “empathy” it claims to have is the result of programming that mimics empathetic language patterns. Unfortunately, AI vendors have a financial incentive to trick users into sticking to their seemingly empathetic products.

The dehumanization hypothesis

Our “dehumanization hypothesis” highlights the ethical concerns that arise when attempting to reduce humans to a few basic functions that can be replicated by a machine. The more we humanize AI, the more we risk dehumanizing ourselves.

For example, relying on AI for emotional labor could make us less tolerant of the imperfections of real relationships. This could weaken our social bonds and even lead to a loss of emotional skills. Future generations may become less empathetic and lose understanding of essential human qualities as emotional skills continue to become commodified and automated.

Additionally, as AI companions become more common, people can use them to replace real human relationships. This would likely increase loneliness and alienation, precisely the problems these systems claim to help with.

Compilation and analysis of AI companies emotional data It also poses significant risks, as this data could be used to manipulate users and maximize profits. This would further erode our privacy and autonomy, taking surveillance capitalism to the next level.

Hold suppliers accountable

Regulators must do more to hold AI vendors accountable. AI companies need to be honest about what their AI can and cannot do, especially when they risk exploiting users’ emotional vulnerabilities.

Exaggerated claims of “genuine empathy” should be declared illegal. Companies that make such claims should be fined and repeat offenders shut down.

Data privacy policies must also be clear, fair, and free of hidden terms that allow companies to exploit user-generated content.

We must preserve the unique qualities that define the human experience. While AI can improve certain aspects of life, it cannot (nor should it) replace genuine human connection.