I am fairly anti generative AI. Beyond its environmental impact, there’s social harm as well. Which angle? Take your pick. Spreading misinformation. Harming reputations. Inciting hate or violence. Impacting political campaigns. Perpetuating bias. The list goes on.

In the writing community, there are also concerns of copyright infringement, the continued societal disrespect and commodification of creative pursuit, and already stressed systems being flooded with AI content.

But lately I’ve been pondering the way generative AI promoters seem to aim at stripping human interaction from society.

Setting the Scene: Her

Let me start with an example. In the 2012 movie Her Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with an AI program. On the surface, it was classic sci fi asking the age-old question: can artificial intelligence feel? But the film had a more unsettling layer.

Throughout the film, there’s a feeling of coercion that can be extrapolated to all couplings with power imbalances. Can a being consent if they can’t say no and does it matter if it’s just a computer?

Theodore, at first isolated and lonely, experiences a selfish, egotistical “love” in which the unembodied Samantha has no desires and molds herself to fit his wants and needs. Watching their “relationship” blossom was uncomfortable. Unlike his very human ex-wife, Samantha accepts him unconditionally and asks nothing in return. He experiences the fairytale “unconditional” love that generations have been told is the ideal romantic love and that many people end up thinking they are owed. (Don’t get me started on the ways unconditional love toward an adult can actually be harmful.)The control he had in their dynamic while still being positioned as a bit pathetic and “harmless”, was unnerving. Throughout the film, there’s a feeling of coercion that can be extrapolated to all couplings with power imbalances. Can a being consent if they can’t say no and does it matter if it’s just a computer? It was a bit perverse and anxiety-inducing which, based on the cinematography, was hopefully the point. It doesn’t escape me that as she develops self-awareness and has a choice, one of her first actions is to leave him.

Maybe the film tried to highlight a future in which communication has deteriorated to the point that AI has to reopen us to the possibility of connection. But it also showcased a world in which Theodore somehow deserves unconditional love and good for him for finding it with an AI. He was painted as so pathetic in a disconnected world that I couldn’t help but think we were supposed to feel bad for him. But nothing about his situation was inevitable. He could have reached out and made a human connection if he was willing to make an effort and surrender the entitlement of being owed unconditional love.

I felt like the movie sidestepped this important issue of unconditional love and entitlement, but if it was just a fictional work of art that wants to explore other aspects of AI, that would be fine. The thing is, the issue is not confined to that film. It’s not only happening around us, it’s being actively encouraged.

Communicating with the Void

When we ask ChatGPT for answers, we get the sensation of communication. That’s the whole point, right? Natural language. But it’s how supporters of the technology position its use that disturbs me. Sure, it’s the usual faster, better, more money spiel. But it’s also positioned as something that replaces human interaction.

In the past week I’ve seen ads or blogs about:

• An AI wellness coach that not only assess your heart-rate statistics but also gives you custom bedtime stories.
• Using AI to get feedback on your business, learning where you can grow your products, change your marketing etc.
• Discuss your novel’s plot with an AI to find plot holes and ways to expand.
• Using AI to beat writers block by having it write what comes next
• Summing up your research and having a conversation with it
• Asking AI what to do in your relationship

The list goes on, but these prompts have one thing in common — they are not ways to get facts and information. Instead, they replace human conversations — often difficult or inconvenient ones. At first, it may be positioned as a convenience. Assistance with cognitive processing anytime, anyplace! But it is the unspoken promises of these ads that tighten my chest.

The Focus Is On You

• You don’t have to be patient, waiting for your turn to speak.
• You don’t have to develop an interest in your counterpart.
• You don’t have to be nice, supportive, or even self-aware.

You Have Control

• You initiate and end the session
• You can tell the program how harshly to criticize your ideas.
• You set the topics and limits for the conversation.

It’s Easy

• It’s on your phone. Your computer. In your home. You don’t have to get dressed or leave the house.
• You don’t have to plan or take time away from work.
• You don’t have to nurture a relationship so you will have someone to talk to when the time comes .

The conversational interface gives the user the dopamine of communication without the difficult parts.

In other words, the conversational interface gives the user the dopamine of communication without the difficult parts, and I’m concerned about where this will lead human interaction. In a world where connection is already difficult, will we become even more selfish and entitled in our interactions? Will people forgo human interaction for the easier AI interaction? Perhaps I sound paranoid. People like interacting, right?

“If you can’t be bothered to write it, why should I bother to read it?”

I think the first time I saw this so succinctly worded was in Laura Keating’s tweet and it’s a sentiment that hits home. It feels like more and more people don’t want to take the time and energy to compose text. Whether that text is an email, a blog post, or a novel. But they want others to take the time and energy to read those emails, blog posts, and novels. (Or maybe they don’t — maybe all they want is the recipient to give them money. Whether or not they read it — whether or not ideas are shared and cultivated — is neither here nor there.)

On the other end of things, people are asking AI to sum up ten articles and one novel into bullet points. No one is writing. No one is reading. So why don’t we just share a set of bullet points and skip the ego stroke of saying “I wrote a book”?

I keep seeing supporters of AI saying things like it “allows you to create deeper and faster.” And I have to ask — what’s the benefit of creating faster? The only “need” fast creation fulfills is to keep public attention and make money. Which is to say human-paced writing is not the problem, but society’s under-valuing creativity may be. In other words, the push for AI writing is less about creativity or sharing ideas and more about capitalist exploitation.

The writing community pushing back against this gives me faith in humanity. There are people who want to write and people who want to read. There are people who want to have real conversations, even (or especially) if they’re difficult. People still value these things and are fighting for them. On a day when I get ad after ad for my own “personal coach” or “business advisor” with none of the effort (or humanity) of friends or colleagues — it is this little sliver of resistance that keeps me hopeful that humanity — creativity and all — will survive.