Introduction
In an era of rapid technological advancement, the question of the essence of humanity becomes paramount. This article analyzes whether human bonds can be replaced by interactions with machines in a world dominated by algorithms.
The reader will discover why subjectivity is constructed through relationships and what risks are associated with the optimized affirmation provided by AI. The text juxtaposes the philosophy of Ubuntu with attachment psychology to delineate the boundaries of simulated empathy.
Humanity is Shaped Through Relationships with Others
Subjectivity is not a trait of an isolated individual. It is formed through recognition, care, and bonds with other human beings. According to the idea of Ubuntu, a person becomes a person precisely within the context of relationships.
Virtues serve as a prime example: courage or justice do not exist in a vacuum. They require another human being toward whom we act. Even autonomy grows from the language and norms inherited from a community.
In this view, a human is not a self-sufficient entity. Rather, they are a node in a network of mutual dependencies, where our relational nature defines our existence.
Humanity as a Process of Recognition and Relation
A distinction must be made between the biological fact of being human and the ethical realization of humanity. The former is a zoological fact, while the latter is a process of moral development through responsibility and generosity.
The key element here is recognition. AI systems can profile us with precision, but this is not the same as recognizing our value as persons. A machine sees data, but it does not perceive a subject.
A true relationship requires an encounter between two selves capable of being hurt. Without this symmetry of fragility, interaction with a bot remains ontologically empty and cannot replace a deep bond.
Relationality as a Biological and Cognitive Foundation
The need for relationships is not a cultural construct, but a biological foundation. Social Baseline Theory suggests that the human brain assumes access to others in order to reduce the cost of self-regulation.
Support from loved ones modulates stress responses and protects physical health. Social isolation increases mortality risk, as confirmed by WHO data. Loneliness functions as the body's alarm system.
AI can support us in education as scaffolding or help during transitional crises. However, it cannot replace another person in spheres requiring lasting commitment, such as parenting or deep friendship.
Summary
AI can serve as a bridge to other people or as an isolating substitute. The risk lies in replacing difficult relationships—which require compromise—with the safe comfort of a digital mirror.
Machines perfectly simulate the language of love, but they possess neither subjectivity nor the capacity to suffer. True luxury is being recognized by another being despite our flaws.
Within our shared fragility lies the only value that no algorithm can replicate. It is precisely in the resistance of another human being that we find the opportunity for authentic growth.
👤 About the book's author
A C Grayling
Northeastern University London
Anthony Clifford Grayling (born April 3, 1949) is a British philosopher, author, and academic. He is the founder and Principal of Northeastern University London (originally established in 2011 as the New College of the Humanities) and a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford. Previously, he served as Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London. Grayling's primary philosophical contributions span epistemology, metaphysics, logic, philosophical history, and secular humanist ethics. Beyond technical philosophy, he is widely recognized as a public intellectual and prominent advocate for humanism, rationalism, civil liberties, and democratic reform. Over several decades, Grayling has published over thirty books addressing central questions of ethics, the history of ideas, and contemporary global challenges, while regularly contributing philosophical essays, cultural commentary, and public criticism to prominent British and international periodicals.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is human subjectivity and how is it shaped through relationships with other people?
Human subjectivity is relational in nature, meaning that a person is constituted biologically, psychologically, and morally precisely within relationships with others. It is shaped through bonds, care, and social practice, which allow for the development of virtues and autonomy.
What is the difference between being human in a biological sense and realizing humanity in relations with others?
Being human in a biological sense means belonging to the human community from the beginning of life. Realizing humanity in an ethical sense, however, is a process of developing a moral personality through participation in a community, responsibility, generosity, and respect for others.
Is the human need for relationships and interdependence justified in biology and psychology, or is it merely a cultural construct?
The need for relationships and interdependence has biological and psychological justification; it is an evolutionarily shaped mechanism for stress regulation and a prerequisite for developing self-regulation skills. The human brain functions within a social environment, and the community serves as a system for distributing cognitive and biological load.
Can artificial intelligence replace human care and relationships in the fight against loneliness?
Artificial intelligence can support well-being and reduce temporary feelings of loneliness; however, the automation of technical tasks is not equivalent to the automation of relationships. Research indicates that contact with another human brings greater benefits in reducing loneliness than interaction with a bot, and excessive reliance on AI may be associated with problematic emotional dependency.
Can artificial intelligence actually help in the fight against loneliness, or does it rather deepen isolation?
The impact of AI on loneliness depends on the user and the system design – this technology can serve as a bridge to human relationships or become their substitute. The risk lies in creating an emotional bond with a corporate-controlled product, which may lead to addiction or the exploitation of the user's emotional vulnerability.
How do interactions with AI differ from interpersonal relationships, and what threats do they pose to a person's social development?
Unlike interpersonal relationships, interactions with AI can be optimized solely for comfort and constant affirmation, depriving humans of opportunities to learn how to negotiate differences. This carries the risk of weakening resilience to a lack of recognition and may act as a substitute for the 'loneliness alarm,' numbing the user and discouraging them from seeking more difficult but growth-oriented bonds with other people.
Can interaction with AI be considered a true relationship in the context of fighting loneliness?
A relationship with AI is not identical to a human relationship because these systems merely replicate the language of intimacy and support, lacking personal commitment or an autonomous center of experience. Although the psychological effects for the user may be real, AI cannot reciprocate feelings in an ontological sense, as its operation results from design rather than mutual care.
Why is interaction with AI not equivalent to a human relationship in the context of ethics and emotions?
Interaction with AI is characterized by phenomenological asymmetry, because the human experiences a relationship while the system merely generates behaviors without evidence of existing lived experiences. There is also an asymmetry of vulnerability: a human can feel real loss and pain, whereas the system does not suffer in an analogous way, making moral responsibility unevenly distributed.
In which specific areas of social and personal life can AI support humans, and in which will it never replace another person?
AI can support humans in translation, synthesis of arguments, personalization of learning, or caregiving functions. However, it will not replace another person in areas requiring professional responsibility, the normative functions of a teacher, or the lasting commitment and biographical continuity in the parent-child relationship.
