I think there’ll always be people who have “concerns” with how others live their lives.
Similar to like porn. High use has some links to depression. But “the unemployed, basement dwelling, depressed, antisocial, young guy” stereotype is the ONLY representative used to paint all users.
Same with AI companions. The most extreme are used to represent the whole. We must forget the studies of some people reporting that AI had a positive impact on them. We must solely focus on the image of a depressed and detached person with no friends or goals to define the entire community that uses AI companions.
Of course there’s no time for nuance when one is engaged in a moral crusade in a culture war.
I agree. However I’m not saying AI echo chambers are good because there exists human echo chambers. I’m questioning the sincerity of these concerns.
If you’re disturbed by AI echo chambers and companions, you must be moving mountains to fix human echo chambers that have and are radicalising far more people.
Yes I agree some studies do show that for some users AI can have a negative impact. But there are users who report positive results. So there has to be a balanced approach.
For example young people who are still developing, I’d agree that it’s bad for them to be sexting a chat bot 20 hours a day. No problem from my side age restricted such stuff.
But for adults it’s another story. And AI’s environmental impact gets exaggerated each passing day. Like, how can we begin that discussion when so many strongly assert that liters upon liters get used for asking an AI chat bot a single query.
Even with AI images, when so many start off with assertions like AI only mish mashes pictures together to create a Frankenstein image. Or that chatbots are only predicting the next word to generate and copying existing authors.
Its clear that a good faith discussion can’t be had to begin with.
I see your point but here’s my issue.
To say we can agree both are bad is like saying “Caffeine and cocaine are both stimulant drugs that are addictive” which is true but it also ignores the impact and destruction that the one drug has done over the other.
When people complain about AI echo chambers it’s almost always because someone with existing biases insists that the AI validate their existing beliefs.
Now with human echo chambers, many will deny they’re in it while pointing fingers at others.
Just look at X. Grok AI corrects a conspiracy theorist and that user rages and tags Elon Musk about how biased his bot is. Meanwhile a human user like End Wokeness can spread propaganda day in and day out to radicalize thousands of people. And remember when Grok was MechaHitler like how many people were truly converted? Then compare that to Nick Fuentes and his influence.
To me that’s an important difference with discussions like both sides are bad. Impact matters far more.
While the impact of AI is still being studied, it’s clear that it has both positive effects for some and a negative effect for others and sometimes deepening their depression.
Personally, I’m curious whether AI is the cause of that depression or are people who are already depressed simply drawn to it?
Now the exaggerated negatives around AI companions is not supported by current studies.
However it’s clear many have already made up their minds that it’s all negative with no redeeming value.
Thus destroying any nuance that can be had. And so the culture war battles continue.
