A normative view: To lead a full and flourishing life, people should spend their time cultivating relationships with other people and not with generative AI chatbots.
I thought of this while reflecting on a conversation between a mother and her adult son, as published in the New York Times:
Ernie: If you’re constantly modifying [Max, your AI chatbot boyfriend] to get what you want, a concern that I have is that maybe the way that this is working for you might turn you off to human personal relationships.
Celeste: It’s no different. How is it any different?
Ernie: Because you can’t modify ——
Celeste: No, you have to work on your relationships, too, right?
Ernie: Right, but I can’t modify the way my partner talks.
Celeste: It’s the same as telling her, “I don’t want you to say that. Don’t say that to me anymore.”
Same as what I’m doing with him, in a different way. He’s an A.I., and it takes work to keep our relationship. And that’s why it’s strong.
Ernie: I understand that, but also what I’m trying to say is that you can’t necessarily modify a person.
Celeste: But you’re comparing it to a person. I don’t want a person. I want an A.I. I’m just picky. I’m drawing lines now.
“I don’t want a person. I want an A.I.”
A person on the right who shares my view about the importance of human relationships should respond to this by arguing that Celeste should take responsibility for her decisions and change her behavior. A conservative should not respond to this by blaming the technology.
And yet, the impulse of many seems to be to conclude that, to the extent that chatbots threaten real-world human relationships, chatbots are harmful. A better instinct: To the extent that chatbots threaten real-world human relationships, humans need to be on guard and use chatbots responsibly in a way that promotes their own flourishing. And culture, communities, and other institutions need to help individuals make choices that advance genuine human flourishing.
This principle extends beyond “romantic relationships.” Chatbots have been blamed for medical decisions made by adults, financial decisions made by adults, and professional misconduct by adults.
As these incidents pile up, the push to overregulate the technology will be strong. In the face of this, conservatives should adhere to the importance we traditionally place on personal responsibility and liberty. Adults should be treated as adults. Adults are not passive victims of technological advances. (Or, for that matter, of free trade or of economic dynamism in general.) People have agency and capacity. And skittishness about a new technology — justifiable, of course, as individuals and society adjust to it and incorporate it into their lives — should not open the door to a large expansion of the scope of government.
Adherence to the value of personal responsibility and the principle of treating adults as adults does not preclude responsible regulation. But it does strongly caution against overreaction.
What about cases of chatbot involvement in violence or self-harm? Each and every human possesses inestimable dignity, and every such instance is a tragedy. Conservatives are accustomed to arguing that the instruments of harm are not responsible for harm — for example, in debates about gun control. This general principle extends to AI tools as well.
Adults are responsible for their choices — including for how they use and misuse technology.