But OP is using AI as a tool, not as a social interaction replacement.

He may be using it as a tool, but that doesn't mean it's not displacing social interaction. Previously he would've had to collaborate with people to get the same stuff done, which necessarily involves social interaction.

I don't think LLMs can replace human collaboration. More like replace documentation and editor drudgery

> I don't think LLMs can replace human collaboration

People are using LLMs to fill friendship, romantic, and mental health voids. Instead of turning to friends, lovers, and therapists/priests/mentors.

Sure but that's rather different from productive collaboration. People have previously replaced those things with Netflix or video games which also cannot replace human collaboration

I think most people would report that LLMs tend to be much more magnetic on that front than passive video entertainment or games!

AI in its current form, it's not a tool, it's a product you pay a subscription for

Local LLMs are pretty powerful and useful for me personally, and the best compute I have locally is a an RTX2060. I certainly have no paid AI subscriptions.

Obviously depends what you're doing, and not suitable for everyone, but it's an unhelpful generalisation to say AI in its current form is purely a paid product subscription.

Effectively it is. I hear relatively very few people talking about self-hosting it, or even just using one of those GPU rental services. It's all about claude, openai, gemini, if you haven't tried this week's model revision you can't complain, and so on.

Is AI a worse vice than social media?

Yes it is because it's the next stage in the emergent phenomenon of tech becoming more addictive so that we can't help but develop it. AI puts technology first over the needs of humans and it's harder to avoid.

But where’s the line? You could say the same about the Internet (or movies or books…) It can be used badly, but also to learn and reduce mundane tasks, unlike social media (though you actually can learn from social media, asking the AI is way more effective).

There isn't a line, just like 'dangerous speed' isn't a line. The addictive and deleterious effect of a technology is more like a continuous quantity and as that quantity increases, the probability of misuse and deleterious effects increase too.

Not per se, but if you're using it as a substitute for human interaction (like most 'chatbot' style UIs want you to), then yes, absolutely.

The main problem is that talking to AI is like talking to a human without any of the thorny parts. It's only going to be nice and helpful and always available to you. Chatting with AI is to social interaction like candy is to a balanced diet. Sure it's more instantly gratifying but long-term it's really bad for you. You need the thorny parts to build important social skills like tactfulness and navigating conflict.

True.

But that’s better than social media, which substitutes human interaction with chronically online weirdos. At least AI is smart and respectful.

Exactly. Interaction with healthy humans is, of course, better than interacting with AI.

But I'd also guess that interacting with AI is better than unhealthy humans, esp those put in front of you by social media.

> It's only going to be nice and helpful and always available to you.

You could always try "You are a thorny internet troll" as your system prompt instead. Works wonders.

> social skills like tactfulness and navigating conflict.

We're not still talking about social media, are we?

(I agree that substituting AI for human interaction is bonkers, btw. But I'm not sure social media helps, or doesn't also involve mostly AI interactions these days.)

Prompting the AI to be mean doesn't do shit. It doesn't change that your interaction with it is always consequence-free. It will never refuse to talk to you, and if it gets too mean you can just nuke it and start an new session. You don't have to build or retain any social skills.

My comment was, of course, tongue-in-cheek.

I'm trying to work out if your own commment was satirical, replying in that prompt's form -- if it was, then kudos. If not:

> It doesn't change that your interaction with it is always consequence-free.

I entirely agree, but this is a major issue with social media currently too. Neither AI or social media improve real social engagement skills, sadly.

As a person who almost certainly has ADHD, AI has done wonders to my social skills. You can either analyze what went wrong when you accidentally blurted out something somewhat inappropriate or pre-plan your presence in a social setting to avoid a costly faux pas, e.g. in job interviews or formal gatherings. Most pre-AI advice on the Internet for these situations is either very heavily NT-coded (blogs, self-help) or has very strong social desirability bias (forums with an upvote system).

Depends, if you care for the bot or develop a para-social relationship with it, then yes, it will be much worse. It does not care or have emotions or understand the human experience. It simulates those things through words and that really messes with the human brain.

If you are using it as an assistant, coach, or deep researcher to chat about interesting things with, then no.

Sherry Turkle breaks it down more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMiR-GxTrtM

Yes.

No one knows for sure, but my guess is no? The difficulty with this conversation of course, lies in the details - specifically in terms of "to what extent can the user, or other presumably positive forces, modify what the person puts in their own brains."

This is why I'm a huge proponent of something like "small AI."

AI's future is like how Unity is represented in Rick and Morty.

the attention economy becomes the affection economy