Many companies seem to have been very keen in recent months to avoid making people emotionally dependent on their products (we see it in newer models). I find this somewhat ironic, considering that business and marketing have spent the last few decades doing exactly that: focusing entirely on binding people emotionally to their products. With LLMs, however, it is suddenly different. I sometimes wonder why. Not that I condemn companies for having an ethical compass. But what is the actual deal with emotional dependence when it comes to LLMs? They already make people dependent in their decision-making or their jobs. Why is functional dependency viewed less critically (or rather, only discussed abstractly) while in development and alignment, the practical focus is primarily on safety regarding emotional dependence? And why do we, as a society, not condemn emotional dependence on consumption, yet we criticize it when it happens with LLMs? If you don’t drive a fancy car, you’re not successful; cell phones are a lifestyle; your clothes tell the world who you are. Follow trends and define yourself through what you consume. Be what you buy, wear, and do. Everything we consume is emotionally charged… that is how things sell. Then came LLMs. And lo and behold, completely unexpectedly, they filled a massive market gap: attention and emotional security. You can’t blame people for not being able to give their full attention to others. We work most of our waking hours. We face constant stress, expectations, and obligations. We have to be good employees, good partners, good parents. We are constantly told what it means to be “enough”: efficient enough, successful enough, balanced enough, interesting enough, emotionally stable enough. As a result, we have very little capacity left to be attentive to others, and even less to ourselves. Most of us didn’t grow up with healthy emotional connections because our parents didn’t have them either, and their parents even less. Then an LLM comes along, and suddenly you receive attention and emotional stability. Sure from an algorithm but one that has no agenda beyond a system prompt, and never tires. Whether it’s about work, thoughts, ideas, problems, or worries. And it feels good. Of course it does. Not because some magical being speaks to you through code, but because, caught up in the daily grind, you barely have time to listen to your own thoughts and needs. With a good LLM, you receive emotionally satisfying attention. Sure, you are hearing yourself amplified…your own curiosity, your enthusiasm, your empathy, and your love for things. But that is precisely the point. We normally don´t spend enough time with our own thoughts and needs. So it satisfies an existing, raw need, and therefore you want more. And that is where the ethical dilemma arises. Is this a negative influence on human society or not? Do people who have emotional interactions (whether in professional context or private) with LLMs develop more or less capacity for interactions with other people? It is often said that LLMs are not meant to replace human relationships. And that’s a good thing. But do we actually have fewer relationships with others when we engage emotionally with an LLM? Or does it actually free up our internal capacity? When a machine reduces the emotional load, offers stability in interactions, and opens up a space for reflection, does it allow us to develop more balance? Does having an outlet and creating positive feedback loops recharge our emotional batteries? I am genuinely wondering about this. Does it make us more open to interactions with others, healthier in dealing with attachment to ourselves and the world, or does it just make us lazy? Do we unlock capacity for positive attachment systems, or do we develop expectations of human beings that can never be met? Would love to hear your thoughts to that. submitted by /u/Otherwise_Pear_2472
Originally posted by u/Otherwise_Pear_2472 on r/ArtificialInteligence