\n<\/p>\n
In a tan polo shirt, brown leather belt, and round bolo tie, MIT PhD student Wil Norton kind of looks like a park ranger, leading our tour group through a tropical jungle. We\u2019re not actually on safari, though \u2014 we\u2019re at MIT\u2019s Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL<\/a>). But what we\u2019re about to see is even more exotic than a cheetah or a jaguar: a pair of humanoid Unitree robots, each costing about $50,000.<\/p>\n (\u201cThey\u2019ll tell you they cost $16,000,\u201d Norton says. \u201cThat\u2019s a lie.\u201d)<\/p>\n We usually only see these robots on YouTube when they\u2019re performing a synchronized martial arts<\/a> routine, or dancing on \u201cAmerica\u2019s Got Talent.\u201d<\/a> Here, they\u2019re approachable. Even though I know it isn\u2019t sentient, I want to be its friend.<\/p>\n With Norton\u2019s permission, I approach the robot, whose nickname is Gabe. For a moment, I\u2019m not sure how to interact with something that has a LiDAR sensor where its brain should be, but I default to treating it like a person.<\/p>\n \u201cHello, sir, it\u2019s nice to meet you,\u201d I say, grabbing its gloved, dexterous hand and shaking it.<\/p>\n I think about this interaction later \u2014 my instinctive impulse to be friendly to a robot \u2014 when I attend Dr. Sherry Turkle<\/a>\u2018s \u201cArtificial Intimacy<\/a>\u201d book launch at MIT Future Fest.<\/p>\n Turkle, who joined the faculty at MIT in 1976, has been researching the relationship between humans and computers perhaps longer than anyone, charting technology\u2019s psychological impact on us from the first home computers to ChatGPT.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen we are drawn into even the most primitive exchanges with a relational artifact, we believe it cares for us,\u201d Turkle writes in the book. \u201cAnd we are wired to care for it in return.\u201d<\/p>\n I\u2019m not alone in my tendency to anthropomorphize robots and large language models (LLMs) \u2014 as Turkle notes, it seems to be in our nature. One study found that about 70% of people<\/a> are polite when interacting with AI, while another showed that users are more likely<\/a> to say \u201cplease\u201d or \u201cthank you\u201d to chatbots once a conversation has progressed past a first prompt-and-response.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople tend to categorize whether this is the right use or wrong use, but I don\u2019t think that is a clear boundary,\u201d Dr. Pat <\/a>Pataranutaporn<\/a>, a colleague of Turkle who founded the Cyborg Psychology research group at the MIT Media Lab, told TechCrunch. \u201cThe question is, who are we becoming when we talk to [AI]?\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s no material consequence of my politeness toward Gabe the robot, but as LLMs infiltrate everything from Google searches to customer service interactions, it has become routine for people to interact with these seemingly sentient chatbots. We\u2019re more vulnerable than ever to the flip side of this impulse, which is that some people can ascribe so much legitimacy to the feelings of chatbots \u2014 which are programmed to never spark conflict \u2014 that they end up favoring them over other humans.<\/p>\n \u201cYou can think of it like fantasy and fiction. We go to the cinema even though we know the story is completely fictional, but we want to experience a certain dimension of human experience that maybe our reality cannot give us,\u201d Pataranutaporn said. \u201cHow do we benefit from that ability to experience other dimensions of human experience without losing it to the fantasy, where you can no longer come back to the reality?\u201d<\/p>\n Pataranutaporn describes himself as a \u201ccritical optimist,\u201d and he studies AI\u2019s potential to contribute to human flourishing. But he\u2019s well aware of how dangerous this technology can be in the extremes. He even served as an expert in a wrongful death lawsuit<\/a> over the suicide of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer, III, whose mother sued the chatbot platform Character.AI, alleging that a chatbot modeled after a \u201cGame of Thrones\u201d character had encouraged her son to end his life.<\/p>\n \u201cIt can create a situation where people don\u2019t feel agency in actually creating their own future \u2014 like when you say that AI will replace everyone, people ask, what are we gonna do? And these companies are not really responding ethically or responsibly,\u201d Pataranutaporn said. \u201cHow do we have imagination while still being responsible for the impact of that imagination?\u201d<\/p>\n While Turkle\u2019s book explores the risk of turning to AI for emotional support, rather than other people, she doesn\u2019t think that AI-human interactions are universally harmful. <\/p>\n She recalls a project she advised in which a student created an AI bot to help people practice for job interviews.<\/p>\n \u201cMy big metaphor is, stay in your lane, chatbot!\u201d Turkle said at the event. \u201cCoaching for a job interview? That\u2019s a lane. I can do that\u00a0\u2026 A chatbot that says to a three-year-old, \u2018I\u2019m your parent, you can talk to me, not your parents,\u2019 is not in a lane.\u201d<\/p>\n But when this technology deviates from its lane even slightly, we become vulnerable to the way it can slowly chip away at our skepticism and make us trust it. It can start with something as simple as a handshake.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission<\/a>. This doesn\u2019t affect our editorial independence.<\/em><\/p>\n