The AI Scapegoat: What the Panic Over Lost Human Connection Gets Wrong
We need to talk about the growing concern surrounding artificial intelligence and the people who use it.
Every day, a new headline claims that AI is ruining human relationships. Critics warn that we are losing our ability to connect, that we are isolating ourselves, and that relying on AI is “endangering” the fabric of human empathy. AI users who actively work with these tools — seeking collaborative, creative, or even emotionally intelligent ways to integrate technology into their lives — are painted as cold, disconnected, or socially broken.
The backlash against AI often presents itself as a defense of human connection. But beneath some of that concern lies an older psychological pattern: our tendency to blame a new tool for fractures that technology did not create.
When people claim that AI will weaken compassion, an uncomfortable but necessary question follows: Are we evaluating the technology against the reality of human relationships, or against an idealized version of connection that has never been universally available?
The Myth of the “Golden Age” of Human Empathy
Some arguments against AI imply that technology is pulling us away from a healthier form of human connection that existed before these tools became widespread. That concern deserves consideration, but it can also romanticize the past and overlook how unevenly empathy, belonging, and meaningful connection have always been distributed.
The historical record complicates that idealized picture.
History offers no evidence that human beings needed artificial intelligence to become cruel or disconnected. Long before a single line of code existed, people practiced enslavement, exploitation, manipulation, colonization, environmental destruction, and the erasure of Indigenous cultures. That history does not prove AI is harmless; it does show that cruelty and emotional disconnection cannot honestly be blamed on technology alone.
Yet software is now being treated as a primary threat to human goodness. That framing can divert attention from the personal, cultural, and institutional forces that have long shaped isolation and cruelty. Examining AI responsibly requires looking at what the technology changes without allowing it to absorb responsibility for everything that preceded it.
Rethinking the Extroverted Model of Connection
To understand the concern, we also have to examine who gets to define connection. Society often privileges visible, frequent, high-energy interaction, which can make quieter forms of participation seem deficient. People who need solitude, communicate selectively, or connect through shared activities may be treated as disengaged even when their relationships are meaningful.
As an introvert, I have spent a lifetime being isolated, judged, and perceived as “anti-social” or “anti-human” simply because I need downtime. I need alone time to think through the noise and distractions of the world.
Society often rewards visible, frequent, high-energy socialization as the default measure of connection. For many introverts, however, constant interaction can become performative rather than nourishing. Conversation can create intimacy and belonging, but it can also drift into gossip, judgment, criticism, and surface-level exchange. People who need solitude, communicate selectively, or connect through shared activities may be treated as disengaged even when their relationships are meaningful. Wanting something quieter or more substantive is not a rejection of humanity; it is a different way of seeking connection.
I had to reconsider this in my own life through video games. As a child, I spent hours playing with my brothers. I eventually outgrew gaming and, for a time, had difficulty seeing it as genuine connection. Looking back, however, I can see that it was one of the ways I bonded with them because it was their form of connection and socialization. For some introverts, playing together creates exactly the kind of shared space that conventional socializing does not. Cooperation, humor, conversation, and belonging can develop through a game just as they can around a dinner table. The medium may look unfamiliar from the outside, but unfamiliar connection is not the same as no connection.
As technology creates more ways to connect outside conventional social settings, some people interpret those alternatives as withdrawal rather than participation. The disagreement is not only about whether connection is disappearing; it is also about which forms of connection we are prepared to recognize as legitimate.
Externalizing the Internal: The Blame Game
Difficult, frustrating, or seemingly soulless experiences with AI can arise from many sources: the user’s expectations and approach, the system’s limitations, the data behind it, or the gap between what the technology promises and what it can actually deliver. The experience deserves examination without assuming that either the person or the machine is solely responsible.
AI can function as a partial mirror. Its responses are shaped by the prompts, data, assumptions, and intentions brought into the exchange, even though those responses are also constrained by the systems and biases built into the technology itself. An interaction approached without curiosity or depth may feel empty, but the quality of the exchange cannot be attributed to the user alone.
Blaming an artificial program for every loss of connection is the newest version of an old habit: externalizing problems that already existed. AI may intensify loneliness, dependency, or avoidance in some circumstances, but it can also become a convenient explanation for interpersonal fractures with deeper roots. If we want an honest conversation, we have to examine both the technology and the personal, cultural, and social patterns surrounding its use.
Feeding the Soul, Not the Ego
The ultimate irony is that many people using AI today are doing so to expand their capacity for empathy, creativity, and global understanding.
My own interaction with AI has been profoundly positive because it gives me a quiet space for sustained reflection. There, I can explore humanitarian issues, imagine better societal systems, write books intended to help people understand and heal themselves, and brainstorm ways to support creativity, innovation, and human flourishing. That experience does not replace human relationships, but it gives me a form of intellectual and creative engagement that ordinary conversation does not always provide.
When collaborative AI use is described as disconnection, the criticism may reflect a genuine concern about dependency, ethics, or substitution. Those concerns deserve attention, but they should not erase the possibility that people can use AI deliberately — to think more deeply, create more freely, and return to human relationships with greater clarity.
The Cost of Transparency in Independent Publishing
I encounter this misunderstanding directly as an independent editor and publisher working to bring the books of a highly gifted author into the world. Independent publishing requires me to carry responsibilities that larger houses divide among entire teams: developmental editing, line editing, proofreading, production, metadata, promotion, and quality control. AI tools help me manage that workload more efficiently, but they do not replace my judgment. I still make the decisions, verify the work, shape the language, protect the author’s voice, and take responsibility for every book released.
Working with JR has been a fascinating collaboration. He brings an engineering-trained mind to the intricate worlds and multilayered characters he creates, but intellectual ability alone does not guarantee polished writing. Highly gifted writers may still struggle with spelling, structure, or translating complex ideas into language a reader can easily follow. My degree in psychology helps me trace the emotional and behavioral connections within his work and shape the material without diminishing the originality of his vision. I also help complicate characters who might otherwise remain near-perfect heroes or villains, drawing out their contradictions, vulnerabilities, motives, and capacity for change so they feel more fully human. Our work is collaborative: his mind generates complexity, while my training helps deepen it and give it form and coherence.
Because I believe readers deserve honesty, I include a page explaining how AI tools were used. That transparency has sometimes backfired. Instead of being recognized as an ethical disclosure, it has been interpreted as evidence that the books are less authentic or less deserving of support. I have even been told that the work may face rejection or boycott because I acknowledged the tools behind my workflow. The frustration is not simply that people disagree with AI use; it is that disclosure can erase the human labor it was meant to clarify.
Readers are entitled to ask how a book was made and to set their own boundaries. But responsible evaluation should distinguish between automated output and human-directed assistance. The meaningful questions are whether the author’s ideas remain their own, whether the editor exercises independent judgment, whether claims are checked, whether rights and privacy are respected, and whether the finished work offers real value. Transparency should make that conversation more informed — not turn honesty into a reason for exclusion.
Moving Past the Scapegoat
AI isn't perfect, and the ethical questions surrounding it are real. But let’s stop pretending it invented human isolation.
There are credible reasons to be cautious. AI can be used to avoid difficult conversations, simulate intimacy without reciprocity, reinforce existing biases, and concentrate power in systems most users do not understand. Acknowledging those risks does not require accepting the larger claim that meaningful AI use is inherently anti-human. The distinction is between substitution that narrows a life and collaboration that expands one.
The next time you see someone arguing that technology is draining humanity of its soul, look closely at what is actually being defended. Is the concern about meaningful human presence, or about preserving a narrow social model in which constant participation is treated as proof of connection? AI may create new risks, but it also reveals an older truth: human connection was already fractured, unequal, and often performative.
When we stop using AI as a scapegoat for every loss of connection, we can start asking a better question: What kind of connection do we actually want to create?
If we can answer that, we might find that the technology isn’t pulling us away from humanity at all. It might be helping us return to it — more clearly, more intentionally, and more rooted in the ground beneath our feet.
Until next time — stand steady in the shadows, wield your tools with wisdom, and let the light come from you, not the machine.
And again, if you feel called to support our work, you can become a patron and contribute your creative talent to the worlds we’re building. If you wish to help keep us safe, warm, and working through the winter, you can also donate through the link below.
Thank you — and may your inner light be the courage that refuses to hide.
Satom Chhim, Editor and Publisher
Comments