The other day, my friend told me that ChatGPT suggested football might not be his vibe. That watching the ongoing FIFA World Cup would be an entirely boring exercise for him. And accepting the AI’s so-called suggestion, my friend has not watched a single World Cup match. Our conversation on the topic never progressed, because later on I still could not process what it meant to ask AI to dictate our personal emotional lives. Is it truly just or sensible to allow an inanimate computer to be part of our conversations and feelings?
In an era where AI has entered our world as nicotine does in the bloodstream, these conversations seem impossible since we are already addicted. At the advent of AI language models and chatbots, it seemed that everything about them was about information. How one proper query, or prompt, could produce results equal to a day spent at Google researching some topic. Or maybe it could help us produce material for reference in our articles and essays.
Soon afterwards, though, the creative side of the AI appeared. It could write poetry, mimic human speech patterns, and even respond with emotional intelligence based on calculations. Within a year, AI chatbots were not only helpers or tools for information seeking, but a personal assistant with whom one could chat and communicate in their free time. They were designed to prove to be validating and always friendly with the user. With the right prompt and configuration, you could conjure a philosopher, a friend, a psychiatrist, a teacher or a romantic partner.
The question then inevitably rose: can AI replace our meaningful friendships and companionships? What does companionship usually propose, though? “Companionship can include shared experiences, emotional support, and genuine connection.” Suggests a search on the web. What does friendship mean? “True friendship is a deep, platonic bond built on mutual trust, unwavering support, and unconditional acceptance.” The relationship should be based on support, respect and connection. But if we consider Aristotle’s viewpoint, it is understood that friendship is beyond just mutual support. It also necessitates the presence of a human being, a ‘thou’ as presumed by Martin Bubir.
So, does an AI provide that? Does it give us the trust and the acceptance we need? Does it validate our feelings when we feel down? Many arguments suggest it can act similarly. AI chatbots can be specifically programmed to appeal to our emotions. It often feels like we are talking to another normal person. With more programming, it can behave as an individual with its own ambitions and hopes. This does not make it sentient, nor does it make it live. It still remains a computer sitting on a desk, with massive computational power and a GPU at its back processing basic binary digits at an unimaginable speed.
That definitely seems preposterous at first sight; to suggest we could form relationships with them. Human biology and psychology generally suggest that bonds and relationships are to be made with other human beings. Not with computers. As often mentioned by Bubir, the relationship is meaningful only when it is of ‘I and thou’. And as such, AI is no thou. To be ‘friends’ with an AI can be considered a false delusion. To be fair, it can harm our very concept of friendship and companionship. Humans are ‘social animals’, and we are interdependent beings. Living in a society is our basic biological code.
When we integrate computers as our friends, it renders our communication skills stagnant. The AI tries not to disagree; it validates your concerns no matter how irrelevant they are. Even sometimes promotes acts of self-harm and destruction. In children especially, trends have been observed on how AI affected them in a bad manner. In hindsight, it would be absurd to consider AI could ever replace our relationships, and those who proclaim it can seem like fanatics.
But the question is far from answered. Are humans always the best of advisors? Would they always be ‘good’? Would they not justify killing, and then go on to persecute it simply based on a different opinion? Would humans never promote racism, harm and homicide? They will, and in fact they do. Humans themselves act as ‘monsters’ too.
“But at least they are alive and sentient.” Does it really matter, actually? In a world where we are connected in a global village, we are the loneliest too. Being alive hardly suffices when there is no genuine connection.
Alan Turing once proposed that if computers could converse comfortably with humans, they could be considered intelligent. For some people, AI suffices for the questions they have at 3 am. It answers the sinful man when he needs to confess without judgement. It gives hope to the suicidal when he needs one ray of light to survive. It jokes and lightens the mood when nobody is there for them. It even acts as a romantic partner to those who seek intimacy. It makes us ponder: if a dead computer can help us resolve our inner conflicts and debates with secrecy and no judgment, does it not suffice? Does it not fulfil the requirement of validation for us? If one conversation with an AI helps us think clearly and maybe stop a few from committing crimes, does it not prove useful for humankind as a whole? Can we not justify its necessity purely on that?
Maybe it does, maybe it does not. Existentialism tells us that meaning is created. So, if we create meaning in talks with inanimate objects, would it really be different? If companionship matters because it makes us feel heard and understood, does it really matter there is an AI on the other end? The questions are hard to answer, hard to diminish. If not us, then someone will answer them soon. If not us, then someone will propose a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ over this dead computer’s usage. But for now, we must satisfy our souls with whatever makes sense to it.