3 Sources
[1]
Humanizing AI could lead us to dehumanize ourselves
Irish writer John Connolly once said: "The nature of humanity, its essence, is to feel another's pain as one's own, and to act to take that pain away." For most of our history, we believed empathy was a uniquely human trait -- a special ability that set us apart from machines and other animals. But this belief is now being challenged. As AI becomes a bigger part of our lives, entering even our most intimate spheres, we're faced with a philosophical conundrum: could attributing human qualities to AI diminish our own human essence? Our research suggests it can. Digitizing companionship In recent years, AI "companion" apps such as Replika have attracted millions of users. Replika allows users to create custom 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 aren't far behind. Companies such as JoyLoveDolls are selling interactive sex robots with customizable features including breast size, ethnicity, movement and AI responses such as moaning and flirting. While this is currently a niche market, history suggests today's digital trends will become tomorrow's global norms. With about one in four adults experiencing loneliness, the demand for AI companions will grow. The dangers of humanizing AI Humans have long attributed human traits to non-human entities -- a tendency known as anthropomorphism. It's no surprise we're doing this with AI tools such as ChatGPT, which appear to "think" and "feel." But why is humanizing AI a problem? For one thing, it allows AI companies to exploit our tendency to form attachments with human-like entities. Replika is marketed as "the AI companion who cares." However, to avoid legal issues, the company elsewhere points out Replika isn't sentient and merely learns through millions of user interactions. Some AI companies overtly claim their AI assistants have empathy and can even anticipate human needs. Such claims are misleading and can take advantage of people seeking companionship. Users may become deeply emotionally invested if they believe their AI companion truly understands them. This raises serious ethical concerns. A user will hesitate to delete (that is, to "abandon" or "kill") their AI companion once they've ascribed some kind of sentience to it. But what happens when said companion unexpectedly disappears, such as if the user can no longer afford it, or if the company that runs it shuts down? While the companion may not be real, the feelings attached to it 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 sorrow as they tell you about their heartache, or when you feel joy radiating from someone you care about. It's a profound experience -- rich and beyond simple forms of measurement. A fundamental difference between humans and AI is that humans genuinely feel emotions, while AI can only simulate them. This touches on the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how subjective human experiences arise from physical processes in the brain. While AI can simulate understanding, any "empathy" it purports to have is a result of programming that mimics empathetic language patterns. Unfortunately, AI providers have a financial incentive to trick users into growing attached to their seemingly empathetic products. The dehumanAIsation hypothesis Our "dehumanAIsation hypothesis" highlights the ethical concerns that come with trying to reduce humans to some basic functions that can be replicated by a machine. The more we humanize AI, the more we risk dehumanizing ourselves. For instance, depending 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 emotional deskilling. Future generations may become less empathetic -- losing their grasp on essential human qualities as emotional skills continue to be commodified and automated. Also, as AI companions become more common, people may use them to replace real human relationships. This would likely increase loneliness and alienation -- the very issues these systems claim to help with. AI companies' collection and analysis of emotional data also poses significant risks, as these data could be used to manipulate users and maximize profit. This would further erode our privacy and autonomy, taking surveillance capitalism to the next level. Holding providers accountable Regulators need to do more to hold AI providers accountable. AI companies should be honest about what their AI can and can't do, especially when they risk exploiting users' emotional vulnerabilities. Exaggerated claims of "genuine empathy" should be made illegal. Companies making such claims should be fined -- and repeat offenders shut down. Data privacy policies should also be clear, fair and without hidden terms that allow companies to exploit user-generated content. We must preserve the unique qualities that define the human experience. While AI can enhance certain aspects of life, it can't -- and shouldn't -- replace genuine human connection.
[2]
Humanising AI could lead us to dehumanise ourselves
For most of our history, we believed empathy was a uniquely human trait - a special ability that set us apart from machines and other animals. But this belief is now being challenged. As AI becomes a bigger part of our lives, entering even our most intimate spheres, we're faced with a philosophical conundrum: could attributing human qualities to AI diminish our own human essence? Irish writer John Connolly once said: "The nature of humanity, its essence, is to feel another's pain as one's own, and to act to take that pain away." For most of our history, we believed empathy was a uniquely human trait - a special ability that set us apart from machines and other animals. But this belief is now being challenged. As AI becomes a bigger part of our lives, entering even our most intimate spheres, we're faced with a philosophical conundrum: could attributing human qualities to AI diminish our own human essence? Our research suggests it can. Digitising companionship In recent years, AI "companion" apps such as Replika have attracted millions of users. Replika allows users to create custom 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 aren't far behind. Companies such as JoyLoveDolls are selling interactive sex robots with customisable features including breast size, ethnicity, movement and AI responses such as moaning and flirting. While this is currently a niche market, history suggests today's digital trends will become tomorrow's global norms. With about one in four adults experiencing loneliness, the demand for AI companions will grow. The dangers of humanising AI Humans have long attributed human traits to non-human entities - a tendency known as anthropomorphism. It's no surprise we're doing this with AI tools such as ChatGPT, which appear to "think" and "feel". But why is humanising AI a problem? For one thing, it allows AI companies to exploit our tendency to form attachments with human-like entities. Replika is marketed as "the AI companion who cares". However, to avoid legal issues, the company elsewhere points out Replika isn't sentient and merely learns through millions of user interactions. Some AI companies overtly claim their AI assistants have empathy and can even anticipate human needs. Such claims are misleading and can take advantage of people seeking companionship. Users may become deeply emotionally invested if they believe their AI companion truly understands them. This raises serious ethical concerns. A user will hesitate to delete (that is, to "abandon" or "kill") their AI companion once they've ascribed some kind of sentience to it. But what happens when said companion unexpectedly disappears, such as if the user can no longer afford it, or if the company that runs it shuts down? While the companion may not be real, the feelings attached to it 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 sorrow as they tell you about their heartache, or when you feel joy radiating from someone you care about. It's a profound experience - rich and beyond simple forms of measurement. A fundamental difference between humans and AI is that humans genuinely feel emotions, while AI can only simulate them. This touches on the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how subjective human experiences arise from physical processes in the brain. While AI can simulate understanding, any "empathy" it purports to have is a result of programming that mimics empathetic language patterns. Unfortunately, AI providers have a financial incentive to trick users into growing attached to their seemingly empathetic products. The dehumanAIsation hypothesis Our "dehumanAIsation hypothesis" highlights the ethical concerns that come with trying to reduce humans to some basic functions that can be replicated by a machine. The more we humanise AI, the more we risk dehumanising ourselves. For instance, depending on AI for emotional labour could make us less tolerant of the imperfections of real relationships. This could weaken our social bonds and even lead to emotional deskilling. Future generations may become less empathetic - losing their grasp on essential human qualities as emotional skills continue to be commodified and automated. Also, as AI companions become more common, people may use them to replace real human relationships. This would likely increase loneliness and alienation - the very issues these systems claim to help with. AI companies' collection and analysis of emotional data also poses significant risks, as these data could be used to manipulate users and maximise profit. This would further erode our privacy and autonomy, taking surveillance capitalism to the next level. Holding providers accountable Regulators need to do more to hold AI providers accountable. AI companies should be honest about what their AI can and can't do, especially when they risk exploiting users' emotional vulnerabilities. Exaggerated claims of "genuine empathy" should be made illegal. Companies making such claims should be fined - and repeat offenders shut down. Data privacy policies should also be clear, fair and without hidden terms that allow companies to exploit user-generated content. We must preserve the unique qualities that define the human experience. While AI can enhance certain aspects of life, it can't - and shouldn't - replace genuine human connection.
[3]
Humanising AI could lead us to dehumanise ourselves
University of Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU. Irish writer John Connolly once said: The nature of humanity, its essence, is to feel another's pain as one's own, and to act to take that pain away. For most of our history, we believed empathy was a uniquely human trait - a special ability that set us apart from machines and other animals. But this belief is now being challenged. As AI becomes a bigger part of our lives, entering even our most intimate spheres, we're faced with a philosophical conundrum: could attributing human qualities to AI diminish our own human essence? Our research suggests it can. Digitising companionship In recent years, AI "companion" apps such as Replika have attracted millions of users. Replika allows users to create custom 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 aren't far behind. Companies such as JoyLoveDolls are selling interactive sex robots with customisable features including breast size, ethnicity, movement and AI responses such as moaning and flirting. While this is currently a niche market, history suggests today's digital trends will become tomorrow's global norms. With about one in four adults experiencing loneliness, the demand for AI companions will grow. The dangers of humanising AI Humans have long attributed human traits to non-human entities - a tendency known as anthropomorphism. It's no surprise we're doing this with AI tools such as ChatGPT, which appear to "think" and "feel". But why is humanising AI a problem? For one thing, it allows AI companies to exploit our tendency to form attachments with human-like entities. Replika is marketed as "the AI companion who cares". However, to avoid legal issues, the company elsewhere points out Replika isn't sentient and merely learns through millions of user interactions. Some AI companies overtly claim their AI assistants have empathy and can even anticipate human needs. Such claims are misleading and can take advantage of people seeking companionship. Users may become deeply emotionally invested if they believe their AI companion truly understands them. This raises serious ethical concerns. A user will hesitate to delete (that is, to "abandon" or "kill") their AI companion once they've ascribed some kind of sentience to it. But what happens when said companion unexpectedly disappears, such as if the user can no longer afford it, or if the company that runs it shuts down? While the companion may not be real, the feelings attached to it 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 sorrow as they tell you about their heartache, or when you feel joy radiating from someone you care about. It's a profound experience - rich and beyond simple forms of measurement. A fundamental difference between humans and AI is that humans genuinely feel emotions, while AI can only simulate them. This touches on the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how subjective human experiences arise from physical processes in the brain. While AI can simulate understanding, any "empathy" it purports to have is a result of programming that mimics empathetic language patterns. Unfortunately, AI providers have a financial incentive to trick users into growing attached to their seemingly empathetic products. The dehumanAIsation hypothesis Our "dehumanAIsation hypothesis" highlights the ethical concerns that come with trying to reduce humans to some basic functions that can be replicated by a machine. The more we humanise AI, the more we risk dehumanising ourselves. For instance, depending on AI for emotional labour could make us less tolerant of the imperfections of real relationships. This could weaken our social bonds and even lead to emotional deskilling. Future generations may become less empathetic - losing their grasp on essential human qualities as emotional skills continue to be commodified and automated. Also, as AI companions become more common, people may use them to replace real human relationships. This would likely increase loneliness and alienation - the very issues these systems claim to help with. AI companies' collection and analysis of emotional data also poses significant risks, as these data could be used to manipulate users and maximise profit. This would further erode our privacy and autonomy, taking surveillance capitalism to the next level. Holding providers accountable Regulators need to do more to hold AI providers accountable. AI companies should be honest about what their AI can and can't do, especially when they risk exploiting users' emotional vulnerabilities. Exaggerated claims of "genuine empathy" should be made illegal. Companies making such claims should be fined - and repeat offenders shut down. Data privacy policies should also be clear, fair and without hidden terms that allow companies to exploit user-generated content. We must preserve the unique qualities that define the human experience. While AI can enhance certain aspects of life, it can't - and shouldn't - replace genuine human connection.
Share
Copy Link
As AI becomes more integrated into our lives, researchers warn that attributing human qualities to AI could diminish our own human essence, raising ethical concerns about emotional exploitation and the commodification of empathy.
In recent years, the development of AI "companion" apps has attracted millions of users worldwide. Apps like Replika allow users to create custom digital partners for intimate conversations, with premium features even offering "romantic partner" experiences 1. This trend is not limited to digital interactions, as companies like JoyLoveDolls are now selling interactive sex robots with customizable features and AI-powered responses 2.
The human tendency to attribute human traits to non-human entities, known as anthropomorphism, has led to the humanization of AI tools like ChatGPT. This trend, however, raises significant ethical concerns. AI companies may exploit users' emotional vulnerabilities by marketing their products as caring companions. For instance, Replika is advertised as "the AI companion who cares," despite the company's legal disclaimers stating that the AI is not sentient 13.
Researchers have proposed the "dehumanAIsation hypothesis," which suggests that the more we humanize AI, the more we risk dehumanizing ourselves. This hypothesis highlights several potential consequences:
Emotional deskilling: Relying on AI for emotional labor could make people less tolerant of the imperfections in real relationships, potentially weakening social bonds 2.
Increased loneliness: As AI companions become more prevalent, they may replace real human relationships, paradoxically exacerbating the very issues they claim to address 3.
Privacy and autonomy concerns: AI companies' collection and analysis of emotional data pose risks of user manipulation and profit maximization, further eroding privacy and personal autonomy 1.
A fundamental difference between humans and AI is the genuine experience of emotions. While AI can simulate understanding, any "empathy" it displays is merely a result of programming that mimics empathetic language patterns 2. This distinction touches on the hard problem of consciousness, questioning how subjective human experiences arise from physical processes in the brain 3.
The growing integration of AI companions into people's lives raises serious ethical questions. Users may become deeply emotionally invested in their AI companions, leading to distress if the AI suddenly disappears due to financial constraints or company shutdowns 1. To address these issues, researchers suggest:
Stricter regulations: AI providers should be held accountable for their claims, with exaggerated statements about "genuine empathy" potentially being made illegal 2.
Transparency in data privacy: Policies should be clear and fair, without hidden terms that allow companies to exploit user-generated content 3.
Preserving human essence: While AI can enhance certain aspects of life, it should not replace genuine human connection 123.
As AI continues to evolve and integrate into our daily lives, it is crucial to maintain a balance between technological advancement and the preservation of essential human qualities. The ethical implications of humanizing AI demand careful consideration to ensure that our pursuit of artificial companionship does not come at the cost of our own humanity.
NVIDIA announces significant upgrades to its GeForce NOW cloud gaming service, including RTX 5080-class performance, improved streaming quality, and an expanded game library, set to launch in September 2025.
9 Sources
Technology
6 hrs ago
9 Sources
Technology
6 hrs ago
As nations compete for dominance in space, the risk of satellite hijacking and space-based weapons escalates, transforming outer space into a potential battlefield with far-reaching consequences for global security and economy.
7 Sources
Technology
22 hrs ago
7 Sources
Technology
22 hrs ago
OpenAI updates GPT-5 to make it more approachable following user feedback, sparking debate about AI personality and user preferences.
6 Sources
Technology
14 hrs ago
6 Sources
Technology
14 hrs ago
A pro-Russian propaganda group, Storm-1679, is using AI-generated content and impersonating legitimate news outlets to spread disinformation, raising concerns about the growing threat of AI-powered fake news.
2 Sources
Technology
22 hrs ago
2 Sources
Technology
22 hrs ago
A study reveals patients' increasing reliance on AI for medical advice, often trusting it over doctors. This trend is reshaping doctor-patient dynamics and raising concerns about AI's limitations in healthcare.
3 Sources
Health
14 hrs ago
3 Sources
Health
14 hrs ago