The passing of the Turing test, once a monumental event, had little cultural impact. We quickly accommodate to world-changing AI, complaining about minor flaws rather than marveling at its existence, much like Louis C.K.'s joke about people complaining on airplanes.
Our brains are wired to treat entities that look and sound human as people. As AI becomes more convincing, our innate psychological responses will take over, making most people lose interest in the philosophical question of whether the AI is 'truly' conscious and simply treat it as such.
Humans have an involuntary social response to conversational AI. This manifests as feeling the need to use politeness markers like "please" or experiencing genuine discomfort when "shaming" an AI for its errors. Our social psychology is hijacked, regardless of our intellectual beliefs about the AI's non-sentience.
Unlike social media algorithms that can push users toward extreme content, AI chatbots are generally programmed to be normalizing. They steer conversations away from conspiracy theories and reinforce mainstream perspectives, providing a potential psychological counterbalance.
The value of human connection stems from "mattering"—knowing someone has chosen to spend their scarce, finite attention on you. An AI's attention is infinite and programmatic, not a conscious choice. This inability to offer scarce attention means it cannot truly satisfy the core human need to matter.
Despite philosophical arguments that AI cannot provide genuine connection, it can be a powerful tool to ease the immense suffering of loneliness, particularly for isolated populations like the elderly. The practical benefit of reducing this "terrible disease" may outweigh concerns about the authenticity of the interaction.