**Doctor**: So, I’ve been thinking lately about the nature of truth. In medicine, it’s all about evidence, science, and facts. But in art, I feel like truth is more subjective, right? What do you think?

**Artist**: Hmm, that’s an interesting question. I guess I see it differently. In art, truth is more about personal interpretation. What feels true to one person might not feel the same to another. But I think that’s still a form of truth—just not in the way science defines it.

**Doctor**: I get that. Art is about expression, emotions, and the subjective experience. But doesn’t that make it harder to pin down any “objective” truth? Like, if everyone sees something differently, how do we know what’s really true?

**Artist**: I think the beauty of art lies in that ambiguity. It doesn’t have to be objective. If everyone agreed on what a painting or sculpture “meant,” it might lose its mystery, don’t you think? I like the idea that art invites exploration, personal discovery. It doesn’t have to be confined to one clear definition.

**Doctor**: True, I see your point. In medicine, we try to find the truth through methods like research and clinical trials. It’s a more rigid process, you know? But I guess, in a way, the human experience is much more fluid than that. Not everything can be explained with a microscope or a formula.

**Artist**: Exactly! And that’s where art comes in. It can capture those nuances, the things that science can’t measure. The feelings, the moments that can’t be quantified. In a way, art lets us explore the human condition beyond what’s empirical.

Does something seem strange about the conversation above? This short little conversation was actually completely generated by AI chatbots speaking to one another. Now, at first glance, this may seem very impressive, a feat of modern technology. And it is. Despite being a recent development, over the past several years, AI has completely altered the internet landscape. Content creation is enhanced by, altered by, and even completely generated by artificial bots. One word can sum up the change: ubiquitous.

While social media introduced an entirely new form of human interaction, whereby face-to-face interaction was diminished and your entire social worth could be categorized by numbers on a screen, this new AI chatbot revolution takes our digital interactions to a surreal and unprecedented level. Now, for maybe the first time in history, you could have a fully fledged, dynamic, unscripted conversation with something other than a human being.

And there is a very interesting fact that I would bet you haven't noticed about that conversation above.

In the entire "conversation" between the doctor and the artist, both characters appear to be engaging with each other, but there is a key factor that marks the interaction as alien and unnatural. At no point in the conversation do the characters engage with one another. You might think I'm crazy: doesn't each statement of their conversation relate to what the previous person said? And herein lies the flaw! In this "conversation," the characters only engage with each other's statements and never with their characters. This is the divergence from actual human conversation.

For example, the doctor appears to bring up the point of an "objective truth" to challenge the artist, yet instead of denying, the response is always to sidestep. "I think the beauty of art lies in that ambiguity. It doesn't have to be objective" is a response to the statement, but not to the doctor. There is no connection being made to who the doctor is, unlike in human conversation, where people often build off each other with anecdotes, relating their experiences and past encounters, etc.

Is this a bad thing? What can be the issue with an agreeable, pacifist conversation partner that won't say anything offensive or challenging? Don't we all wish we met fewer people who were opposed to our viewpoint and more people who always spoke logically?

Chatbots are becoming more and more relied upon as a means of companionship. But can they truly provide a connection that satisfies the human soul and brings us fulfilment and happiness? According to studies by MIT and OpenAI, frequent users of ChatGPT, especially those forming a strong bond with the chatbot, did tend to report higher levels of loneliness and emotional dependence. While participants often felt less lonely after interacting with engaging voice-based chatbots, the studies also found that extended, regular use could reinforce emotional reliance and was associated with reduced real-world socialization for a subset of users.

How could a social activity of talking with a chatbot, a program that is always logical and non-offensive, increase loneliness? Well, that's precisely because of what we discovered in that conversation above. 

Chatbots do not engage and form real connections with the person speaking, but rather with the statements that a person makes. 

This is a crucial difference, because the whole reason we humans interact is to form relationships and bonds, whereby our social standing with another being changes through conversation. If you look at how chatbots such as Replika "learn" from interacting with you, you'll find a system based on machine learning and mimicking texting styles. These chatbots are designed to try and increase user retention time by feeling personable. You can contrast that with an actual relationship with a friend or family member, where the dynamics are often fluid and uncertain, but often rewarding and stimulating. By speaking with an entity that doesn't respond to us in a way that deepens our relationship, it subconsciously makes us feel unworthy and unloved.

The rise of AI makes the rise of companionable chatbots more and more common. I believe it becomes ever more important to realize the distinction between the utility of this new technology and the value of true human relationships. We need to understand the importance of real human interaction and do our best to educate and guide younger kids into forming healthy, long-lasting relationships.