Will AI make us dumber and asocial? Let’s brainstorm together at the Santa Cruz Night of Ideas

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.

Sesame AI just released a product we all want – a dream companion, “an ever-present brilliant friend and conversationalist,” someone to keep you informed, organized and make you a “better version of yourself.”

“Maya” is not merely texting you, she talks to you. She has a natural voice that feels eerily human, like Spike Jonze’s “Samantha,” the sexy computer-generated love interest voiced by Scarlett Johansson in the 2013 sci-fi romantic comedy “Her.”  

Now, Samantha is no longer a fictional creation. Not only can all of us text with an artificial intelligence friend, therapist or coach, but we can also have a seamless phone call with an AI-generated assistant to plan trips, write proposals and even generate op-eds. The technology is amazing, but also potentially dangerous if we don’t take time to think about what it all means. 

Part of my job as a philosopher at UC Santa Cruz is to think about the challenges new technologies like this one present, while also considering what makes us uniquely human. It’s something Socrates, Aristotle and other philosophers famously spent much of their lives pondering, and which we still wonder about today. 

The dazzling acceleration of AI – which is racing past human capacities in countless domains – requires a special vigilance from public philosophers like me. We have to consider how we safeguard human interaction, our propensity for critical thought with other human beings and for engaging with the world.

This week, I’ll be participating in  – and invite you to attend – two free public events as part of the worldwide series known as the “Night of Ideas,” which runs through Sunday in 190 cities and 140 countries. Our local events happen this week, on Friday, April 4, from 5 to 9 p.m. at UCSC’s Institute of the Arts and Sciences on the Westside, and on Saturday, April 5, at 7 p.m. at the Asian Art Museum and San Francisco Public Library.

Along with my colleagues, I worry about our students’ use of large language models like ChatGPT. Will we become intellectually lazier in the long run? Will our abilities for writing, reasoning and problem-solving slowly decline generation after generation?

What I worry most about is whether we’ll become less able to talk, listen and relate to one another. AI companions and assistants can challenge our thinking – and they will likely do so with increasing sophistication in the months and years to come. But they’ll do so in ways that are so efficiently curated to our preferences that we might be tempted to just give up on human-to-human interaction altogether.  

We didn’t need the recent progress in natural-sounding voice AI like “Maya” to see red flags. You might have heard about the recent, tragic story of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III, who, after spending months chatting and developing strong emotional bonds with an AI character, committed suicide to “join” his synthetic partner. 

Devastating cases like these might remain rare, but I wonder if, when and how we will start missing the crucial aspects of a face-to-face conversation: the uneasy messiness, the clumsy disagreements, the careful interpretation of another’s reactions. Where will our patience, understanding and adaptability go? 

Yes, our relationships with other human beings can be risky, embarrassing, unpredictable and uncomfortable. But do we want tailored efficiency, convenience and “security” so badly that we’d be willing to let our relational muscles atrophy, leaving us unable to truly engage with others? 

What if we can no longer revise our thoughts through rubbing them against someone else’s, asking questions that might not have answers and raising problems that might not have ready-made solutions? That’s what philosophers do. That’s what you do, too, when you take the time to talk to and think with other people.

I know, philosophy carries the stigma of elitism – of being a fusty old-fashioned, male-dominated discipline disconnected from the raw realities of life. But today, I have never felt so convinced that initiatives in public philosophy are vital. The mending they provide can help us suspend time – but can also urge us to act. 

The way I see it, public philosophy gatherings offer redeeming parentheses for our minds to breathe, a chance to reflect, talk and wonder about the kind of life we want to live. 

For 2025, Night of Ideas has adopted the theme “Common Ground.” All events across the globe include an invitation to discuss the values and beliefs we can share. What better call could we get in our increasingly polarized digital age?

The evening will include interactive sessions on democracy, solar energy, AI and housing justice. It will open with a vivid capoeira, a vivid blend of martial arts and dance, feature sculptural performances and live piano meditations. It will also showcase the TEQ Deck, a deck of 52 “playing” cards created by Jon Ellis, director of our Center for Public Philosophy, that pose 52 pressing ethical questions about technology. Kyle Robertson, assistant director of the center, and I used it in last year’s tech Ethics Bowl for high school students – yet another example of public philosophy. 

One of the deck’s 52 cards reads: “What kind of intelligence or consciousness would a robot or artificial machine need to have for it to be wrong to destroy it?” I’ll be discussing this very question at the San Francisco Night of Ideas with Rob Long, executive director of Eleos AI, a research organization investigating the potential well-being and moral status of AI systems. Drawing both on his work and my own current research on cyber-intimacies, we’ll map out the latest debates on AI sentience and examine how AI systems, as they grow more advanced, are transforming human relationships. Should we give AI rights since people are forming relationships not only via technology, but increasingly with it?

We need to have these discussions about human-machine interactions publicly. They can’t be confined to academic conferences or siloed in corporate boardrooms. The stakes are too high. We need public input, experience and awareness. 

As we face a weakening of our democratic institutions and an erosion of collective meaning, beliefs, and values, it is all too tempting to just withdraw into the convenient, validating, and narcissistic bubbles in which our new AI friends can shield us.

I see public philosophy as a form of democratic activism – one that doesn’t ignore the loneliness that makes AI attractive. One that reminds us that thought is an ongoing, unfinished endeavor – a relentless effort to challenge our assumptions, engage with those who see the world differently, and remain, at times, suspended in uncertainty. That collaborative journey demands humility, compromise and deliberation. 

With trust among fellow humans fractured at global, national, and local levels, I invite you to come think together about what connects us as humans. You have two free chances this week. I say, take them. 

Jeanne Proust teaches philosophy and the ethics of emerging technologies at UC Santa Cruz. She is actively involved in the Center for Public Philosophy, where she served as director from 2023-2024. She is vice president of the Public Philosophy Network, and advocates for a widening of philosophical education beyond academia by planning, producing, and participating in different events open to the general public. She has also recently started her own philosophical counseling practice, open to people seeking to examine their values and life concerns through the lens of philosophical inquiry. She helped launch the first tech ethics bowl in the Bay Area, and spearheaded the Santa Cruz Night of Ideas.