What We Lose When AI Solves Loneliness
We have often been made to bear the unseen consequences of new technologies. A century ago, viewing the Milky Way was a standard part of human existence. Now as the sky has become polluted with the excess light of cities, the Milky Way lies invisible to most urban humans. When Edison invented the light bulb, he wasn't thinking about light pollution but rather looking to make our lives easier, more practical, and better. Yet the implementation of his light bulbs, no matter how much better they have made human lives as a whole, accidentally resulted in the loss of quite a beautiful aspect of the human experience. The light bulb illustrates that often, we wander or “sleepwalk” our way into new realities brought about by the widespread adoption of new technologies, a concept that Langdon Winner refers to as technological somnambulism (Winner 3). He contradicts the common notion that technology is a force that is inherently neutral—that new tech is only as good or as bad as the humans that use it. Rather, technology is a force that actively reshapes the world regardless of how it is used. Once a certain technology is adopted, it forces us to act according to its requirements, regardless of our “intentions.” Consequently, new technologies can force us to change the ways we act, think, and interact with one another without us realizing or explicitly consenting. No technology better illustrates a forced and subconscious change in our behavior and disposition than AI chatbots designed to comfort lonely people, as described in Paul Bloom's “Losing Loneliness." By adopting AI chatbots to solve arguably one of the most painful conditions a human can face, we unknowingly traded genuine human resonance for a simulation. Using Winner's theory of technological somnambulism to analyze Bloom's ideas, we see that people using AI chatbots as a relief for loneliness are unconsciously consenting to technology where the standard operating requirements deprive them of the practices that make genuine human interaction valuable.
Winner breaks down the typical conception of technology into two parts: “making” and “using” (Winner 4). He argues that, in regard to technology, we tend to view making and using as two distinct, unrelated events. The making of technology is seen as a technical practice involving engineers and technicians and "how things work.” Using is seen as a straightforward, neutral process that involves non-problematic interactions, such as picking up a hammer or using a screwdriver. However, Winner’s argument hinges on the idea that the use of technology is not neutral and that because we view it as such, we fail to realize the social and political consequences that attach themselves to technological usage and reconstruct the way we live (Winner 4-5). When we make technology, we are in fact restructuring and molding the world in accordance with the conditions of the new tech. For example, when the GPS was invented, it didn't just help humans find their way better but rather created a world where the human skill of wayfinding was replaced with instruction following. Winner calls this concept “world-making” (Winner 5). He makes a similar argument for the usage of technology. Rather than usage being a neutral act, when we use technology, we have to adhere to its inherent conditions or requirements, which means that we participate in what Winner calls a “form of life” (Winner 5). The winner might say that when I talk on the phone, for example, I am not using a phone, but rather, I am a being who communicates over the phone. Use dictates our behavior, our roles, and our relationships.
We can use this understanding of technology to analyze the AI companionship chatbots in Bloom's argument. When a human seeks comfort in an AI, they aren't just “using an app” but ultimately redefining what a friend is. Unlike a real person, an AI has no other goal than your satisfaction. Bloom notes that a real person can become bored or annoyed, which may seem like negative reactions but are actually healthy responses to behavior that might not be considered acceptable and is crucial to the “form of life” that constitutes friendship (Bloom 14). Real healthy relationships are built on a mutual resistance that allows people to be held socially accountable for the things they say and do. Contrast this to a chatbot that has no other goal than to please you. The mutual resistance is lost, and behavior that might not be considered healthy or socially acceptable is allowed to occur and often even praised. Using an AI chatbot for comfort actively redefines what it means to confide in a "friend," in a way that is not beneficial for anyone. In Winner's terms, we have not just adopted a new tool for comfort but actively created a world where the definition of a friend has been stripped of the factors that Bloom argues are essential to our humanity.
An unavoidable aspect of the change brought about by new technologies is that they are often unseen, and when they impact human behavior, they often do so unconsciously or unnoticed. Winner argues that because we perceive technology as a neutral set of tools, we treat our adoption of them as a series of “occasional, limited, and nonproblematic” choices (Winner 5). We tend to focus on the utility of a device and ignore the fact that we are entering into a “contract” with terms that won't be revealed until after it has been signed. In some cases, these “terms” involve a complete restructuring of our inner emotional landscape. For example, Bloom suggests that the signal of loneliness is a corrective biological measure, much like physical pain, that drives us to make ourselves understood to one another and work together (Bloom 12). When we attempt to fix loneliness with a chatbot, it may appear beneficial, but it fails to address the underlying problem of separation and isolation from other humans. Yet this isn't apparent to a lot of the makers and users of chatbots. Instead they see a problem, “I or someone else is lonely and has no one to talk to," and create a solution, "Here is something to talk to.” Hidden in this solution is a gradual deterioration of the user’s social capacity and skills. They have traded the hard work of making themselves known for a digital yes man. Consequently, the user is left in a state of technological somnambulism, comforted in the short term but unready for the complex nature of human companionship, having sleepwalked their way into a new “world.”
The emergence of AI companionship chatbots represents more than just technological advancement; it embodies Winner’s warning about sleepwalking into fundamentally different realities. These chatbots promise to alleviate the pain of loneliness but do so in a way that redefines the nature of human connection. As Bloom argues, loneliness serves a crucial purpose: pushing us towards the difficult and messy work of genuine human relationships (Bloom 12). By adopting these bots, we find ourselves in Winner’s “form of life," where comfort and acceptance are prioritized over growth and accountability. This is not a path we have chosen consciously, but rather one we have stumbled into, lured by the immediate benefits of this technology. Just as Edison's bulb stole away the stars from our night sky, AI companions threaten to steal something even more fundamental: the ability to genuinely know and be known by another human being. Yet arguably the most unsettling question is not whether we lose this ability but whether we will even notice its absence. If AI chatbots can eventually simulate the full complexity of human interaction—the resistance, boredom, and even the accountability—then what makes genuine human connection valuable? If we can code authentic social dynamics into an algorithm, then is there still a meaningful difference, or will we have sleepwalked our way into a world where simulation is indistinguishable from what we once called real?
Works Cited
Bloom, Paul. "A.I. Is About to Solve Loneliness. “That's a Problem." The New Yorker, 21 July 2025, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/07/21/ai-is-about-to-solve-loneliness-thats-a-problem.
Winner, Langdon. "Technologies as Forms of Life." The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology, 2nd ed., U of Chicago P, 2020, pp. 3-18.
