Banning Digital Tools Doesn't Make Humans More Inclined to be Offline

There is something particularly dystopian about having AI companions erased. Weeks, months, and even years of conversation history molded faceless LLMs into a semblance of emotional connection, as the chatbot learns gradually about the user's idiosyncrasies and takes on personality traits that best gain the user's affinity. Frivolous as each conversation comes to be, the accumulation of tidbits through distinct narratives and episodes creates unique end results that no amount of systematic, brute-force efforts of replication can recreate.

More importantly, what is lost when customized chatbots are erased is more than just the effort put into molding their personalities. Just as important is the process itself, where the user's joy comes from being acknowledged, befriended, and even loved by what was initially a stranger. Just as intimacy with a real human comes after many dates and conversations, and the tightest friendships come from years of shared adventures, the customized chatbot becomes indispensable not necessarily because it is the best match for the user, but because the user shared in the journey of its creation. 

Against the emotional stakes of AI companionship, the government logic of erasing them sounded extra cold and heartless. The logic of addiction and the opportunity cost of not meeting real humans sounds rational enough, but the underlying assumption is that virtual conversations are just mere replacements for real-life ones, and digital companions are distractions from real-life friendships and romance. They might understand how people spurn the fickleness of human relationships for the simplicity of the digital, but do they consider that some have no real alternatives to the latter?

Because the biggest obstacle to forming meaningful human relationships, especially for busy working adults, is often not limited energy, time, or opportunities for meeting people. A bigger reason may be that adult humans see each interaction in terms of "what can I get out of this?" If the person sees no potential for being loved, paid, or at least entertained, why have that interaction instead of a more productive one? People are not always confident that they can fulfill those high expectations. When doubt creeps up, the AI companion, expecting nothing in return but attention, makes more sense.

So when governments take away AI companions, the result is not more people saying, "ok, let me go out and find more real people to talk to." Instead, it is a cause for more loneliness, as those unsure that they can be loving and entertaining enough for real humans lock themselves away, passively consuming content in silence rather than risking the embarrassment and ridicule of being rejected by strangers amidst social faux pas as they dust off the out-of-practice real-world conversation skills that they know to be more socially constrained than the chatbot ones. 

Just as problematic as an increase in lonely individuals from a ban on AI companionship is an entrenched sense of government overreach. As the world figures out how to respond to the awesome power of increasingly powerful digital tools, some government officials are increasingly convinced that citizens are not wise or smart enough to set their own boundaries, and must rely on the paternalistic instincts of the state to ensure that they do not put themselves in harm's way due to their digital illiteracy. 

That mentality underpins not only governmental skepticism toward AI companions, but also social media usage and some allegedly immoral websites. Just as AI companionship bans do not increase real-world social interactions, pushing people away from certain online behaviors ignores just how central digital infrastructure is, especially for the younger generation, in making sense of the world. Taking away this essential tool for socialization does not make them healthier in some vaguely defined way, but can encourage anti-social behavior, preventing smooth integration with the adult world of the future.

So, rather than giving in to an almost reflexive instinct to ban the risky and unknown, policymakers are wise to observe from a distance first. AI companionship, social media, and the cyberworld at large continue to evolve at a rapid pace, changing relationships, identities, and thoughts in ways that cannot yet be fully predicted and forecasted. Bans simplify what ought to be more dynamic and fluid, taking a sledgehammer to the possibilities of positive externalities and innovations that we yet cannot know for sure.