We may not like what we become if A.I. solves loneliness

Social media, youth, and shrinking public life

• Several argue the “loneliness crisis” long predates AI: the web, smartphones, and social media already replaced much in‑person interaction with solitary doomscrolling and parasocial consumption (YouTube, Twitch, TikTok).
• Commenters note Gen Z often prefers staying home with feeds to bars or clubs; some mention FOGO (fear of going out).
• A recurring theme is the loss or degradation of non‑commercial “third places” (parks, libraries, community centers), driven by commercialization, NIMBY zoning, safety concerns, homelessness, and underfunding.
• Others push back: in many cities, parks, gyms, climbing gyms, trails, and events are busier than ever; the pattern may be highly regional and shaped by personal habits.

Birth rates, pressure, and material precarity

• One subthread debates whether banning social media would raise birth rates; some call this obsession with fertility “creepy” and dehumanizing, likening people to breeding stock.
• Others frame low birth rates as a civilizational risk (too many retirees per worker), while critics counter that automation, ecocide, and exploitative social contracts make population shrinkage less clearly bad.
• Many younger commenters say they avoid having kids mainly due to housing costs, job insecurity, childcare expenses, and fear of throwing children into an unjust “meat grinder,” not because of Instagram.

Can AI companions truly ease loneliness?

• Strong skepticism: loneliness is described as a need for esteem from real humans with agency and the power to reject you. An AI compelled to validate you “by design” cannot provide that, no matter how well it roleplays.
• Several insist that physical presence, touch, shared experiences, and embodied cues (hormones, mirror neurons) are irreplaceable; AI is compared to a sex doll or stuffed animal for social needs.
• Others report genuine comfort from ChatGPT‑like systems: using them as conversational partners, “thinking mirrors,” gentle therapists, or status‑affirming friends that are more patient and positive than humans.

Risks: manipulation, ego‑traps, and democracy

• Many fear AI “friends” will be tuned as sycophantic yes‑men that entrench narcissism, avoidance of real relationships, and illusion of growth—more dangerous than TV because it masquerades as socializing.
• There is deep concern about political and commercial capture: AI companions with rich user profiles could become powerful tools for micro‑targeted persuasion, radicalization, and propaganda, undermining shared reality and democratic deliberation.
• Some see this as the logical continuation of ad‑tech and social media algorithms, now upgraded with 24/7 personalized psychological operations.

Loneliness, negative emotions, and what might help

• Several distinguish loneliness from solitude: solitude can be cherished; loneliness is intrinsically painful, perhaps evolution’s “alarm” to push us back toward community.
• Some argue that numbing this signal with artificial companionship (like opioids or junk food for other drives) risks worsening the underlying social decay.
• A minority optimistic view: AI used well could act as matchmaker, coach, or CBT‑like helper—improving social skills, facilitating meetups, and nudging people toward richer human networks—rather than replacing them.