Pervasive digitalization makes many things efficient and convenient for us. It offers paths of low resistance, which we readily take, gaining utility and developing digital habits. But this convenience comes with some curious paradoxes. Consider just one. It is remarkable that in an environment where communication costs are infinitesimal, social isolation is becoming a major problem. It seems that despite the readily available digital links and associated digital communication tools available, deep social relationships and sense of community is going down. Why is this? Are algorithmically curated groups just not creating profound relationships? Are relationships due to a common cause or interest, not fostering deeper social bonds? The costs to individuals and society are significant, as we see more polarization, depression, suicides, and digital maladaptation.
So, why are digital connections leading to social isolation? There are many possible reasons…not the least of which is our move to more personal devices — which are just that — personal. We have moved from a world where limited content was shared, to a world with an explosion of diverse and customized content that makes it impossible to engage with communally. Think of the 6:30 pm news watched by the family to news snippets curated and customized on social media. Think of movie theaters where friends go together to Netflix and the plethora of streaming services routinely watched on handheld devices. Think of video game parlors to online gaming. Think of mall shopping to clicking on Amazon and home delivery. And think about the inclination of many to virtually meet rather than deal with the overhead of attending physical meetings. Why attend classes when lectures can be recorded, or watched on YouTube? Compared to physical routines, which often involve engagement and social interaction, digital routines are truncated and designed to achieve efficiency. Yes, this is “progress” fostered by digitization. But there seems to be a cost to society of social isolation that is not being offset (at least not effectively) by all the digital tools we have at our disposal. Social media is not social enough.
This has profound implications for AI which is aggressively pursuing anthropomorphism in its growing plethora of digital assistants and chatbots. And when we will inevitably have AI chatbots with physical manifestations (intelligent home robot companions), will the multimodal quality of interaction and greater dyadic interplay resolve the social isolation problem? Or will these interactions just offer short term simulated relief (e.g., an ability to vent to a box) without the ability to form deeper bonds or the social indoctrination needed to cultivate greater community. Are we willing to sacrifice the drama of human relationships for the convenience of a digital safe space that does not judge or reject?
While we don’t know the trajectory of AI, we do know that some people will form varying degrees of bonding with their AI (visualize “Her”). We also know that we can design and configure our AI companion, and since the AI improves with data, the alignment (compatibility) will continually improve with interaction. The more important question is whether all this digital interfacing is chipping away at our humanness. Are we numbing our ability to empathize? Is our expectation of digital efficiency reducing tolerance for even minor inefficiencies in the real world making it tougher to forge human-human connections. If we are indeed in small ways losing our humanness, and AI with technological leaps is gaining humanness – maybe we will need to redefine what “social” connection and isolation mean. Certainly, food for thought.
Leave a Reply