Technology companies recognize our need for closeness and create services that bind us ever more tightly to AI. They are profiting from loneliness, Zofia Dzik, founder and president of the Humanites Institute – Human and Technology, told PAP, the Polish Press Agency.
PAP: In the Humanites Institute’s latest study, “Between Loneliness and Innovation: People and the Economy in the Age of AI,” 30% of respondents said it is easier for them to talk about their problems with artificial intelligence than with someone close to them, and one in five people talks about their life with AI at least once a week. What are we not getting from people if we are looking for it from an algorithm?
Zofia Dzik: Real closeness, interest, empathy and a sense that we matter to someone. More and more often we live next to each other instead of together. This applies not only to people who live alone. You can feel lonely while living with your family or while at work, even though you are surrounded by people.
At home, we mostly exchange logistical information: who will buy the bread, who will pick the kids up from school. We ask what happened in class and why the room is a mess. We account for our duties, but less and less often do we ask, with genuine curiosity, what the other person is going through. That kind of conversation needs time, and time that flows more slowly. It’s hard to have it on the run, between one task and the next.
Algorithms are entering this space, designed to imitate contact with a human being better and better. They offer responses that we perceive as attentive and empathetic. They are starting to fill the place that until now was reserved for human relationships.
PAP: We say we don’t have enough time, and yet we spend it in front of a screen. Maybe we choose an algorithm also because it is nice, doesn’t show impatience and doesn’t oppose us the way a human does?
Z.D.: Disagreement is precisely one of the factors that makes a relationship with another person help us grow. We confront our thinking with a different perspective, we learn something, we change, we broaden our outlook. Closed off in our own world, we become more and more entrenched in what we already know and believe.
The business models of the big social media platforms are designed so that algorithms have long served to hold our attention. Every additional minute we spend online translates into concrete, measurable revenue from advertising content. The development of AI offers even greater possibilities for creating contact, and even a sense of a relationship that we will want to return to. In my assessment, some technology companies knowingly exploit their knowledge of human loneliness, not to counteract it but to make money from it. They recognize the natural need for closeness and build services meant to bind the user ever more strongly to the technology. To put it bluntly: these companies’ algorithms monetize our loneliness.
It’s worth looking in this context at China, where the Interim Measures for the Administration of AI Anthropomorphic Interactive Services have been in force since mid-August. These are regulations covering AI services designed to communicate with a person in a way that mimics, or imitates, a human relationship. They prohibit designing such services to replace social contacts, psychologically control the user or induce addiction. They also require a clear disclosure that the interlocutor is artificial intelligence. Their implementation resulted in the immediate shutdown of many services on leading Chinese platforms. So the danger was recognized that contact with a machine could begin to displace human bonds.
It is very interesting that China was the first country in the world to introduce such a regulation. In my assessment, the decision was hastened by the Middle Kingdom’s dramatic demographic indicators. Struggling with an aging society and negative natural population growth, China may also view such services through the prism of their long-term social effects. If people increasingly shut themselves into relationships with machines and withdraw from contact with other people, the consequences will go beyond the life of an individual user. On the other hand, introducing and enforcing such rules seems difficult, if not impossible, in Western democracies.
PAP: The press release about the study said that nearly one in three respondents “prefers” to confide in AI. The study itself, however, says it is “easier” for them. That’s an important difference: someone may need a human being but have no one to talk to.
Z.D.: It’s great that you caught that. The desire for closeness comes through very strongly in our study. More than 60% of respondents believe that artificial intelligence will not replace relationships with people, and about 70% think that relationships give their lives meaning. At the same time, 40% say they lack closeness or a person for an honest conversation.
So we have a paradox: an enormous need for contact and, on the other hand, a growing fear of it and difficulty in forming relationships. If for a long time we limit conversations to short messages and shut ourselves in our rooms, each in front of our own screen, then returning to closeness becomes hard. The desire for it alone is not enough. You also have to know how to start talking at all, before we dare to open up to another person.
This is particularly visible in the youngest age group, 18–29. In our study, as many as 36% of them believe that relationships with AI or robots can easily replace relationships with people, and 11% confide their problems exclusively to artificial intelligence at least once a week, without discussing them with any human being.
PAP: As many as 45% of respondents talk about their problems neither with people nor with AI. Among those who live alone, it is 63%. What is behind this silence?
Z.D.: In my view, several causes overlap. First of all, the lack of a person with whom we feel safe. To talk about something difficult, we need trust and a conviction that someone truly wants to listen to us, rather than immediately judge us or give their advice. An important message is usually not tossed out in passing in a hallway. You have to sit down with someone and have room for a conversation.
The results on the simplest gestures of closeness are also poignant. More than 70% of people who live alone do not hug anyone close to them even once a week, compared with just under 40% among all respondents. Behind these numbers is the everyday reality of people who lack not only conversation but also a simple hug.
On top of that comes a lack of practice and courage in talking about oneself. Young people in particular live in a world of quick judgments, exposure on social media and hate. On the one hand, we show a great deal: we post photos, we report on events. On the other hand, this presence is sometimes a facade; it doesn’t have to be accompanied by a deeper bond that lets us say what really hurts us, what moves us, what we long for.
PAP: Loneliness used to be associated primarily with older people. Yet 47% of respondents ages 18–29 report a lack of closeness, compared with 35% in the 50–64 age group. Why is it so hard for young people to be together?
Z.D.: With the development of social media and gaming platforms, we created a space for them online that rewards quickly, has eliminated delayed gratification and offers a sense of belonging. Somewhat preoccupied with ourselves, because recent decades have also brought a progressive breakdown of families and multigenerational ties, we left them there, and now we are surprised that they feel lonely and have trouble building relationships. We adults, too, are increasingly lost in this world: overworked, tired, overstimulated, living on the run.
On top of this came the experiences of the pandemic, remote learning and university study, meetings with cameras turned off. If direct contact fades, it is not always easy to return to it, as research in neurobiology clearly shows.
We also can’t forget about home and school. When a child is small, we notice every expression on their face and we are delighted by each new skill. As they grow up, curiosity too often gives way to judgment: why didn’t they do this or that? School, too, is struggling with an overloaded curriculum, large classes, staff shortages and pressure to deliver results. Meanwhile, it is supposed to prepare students for an independent, responsible life in a world that is changing dynamically and that is hard to define even for the next decade. For me, school is, and should be, above all a space for relationships as well.
PAP: How do you talk to a teenager who answers every question with a single word?
Z.D.: Don’t give up on showing interest in them, but also start sharing yourself. I’m a mother of three, and I see that even when they initially say little, they are happy to listen. When we talk about ourselves, over time they start talking, too.
Simple rituals help: a shared meal, putting phones away at the table, time set aside for something we do together. In our home we have music Fridays. Each person in turn plays a song they’ve been listening to lately. That lets us see how the children’s interests change.
Recently we traveled a lot and the gatherings didn’t happen. At some point our youngest child said on their own that it had been a long time since we’d had a music Friday. That shows the power of such a custom: even after a break, you want to come back to it. We also play board games. Our oldest child, who no longer lives with us, organizes their own game nights and invites siblings and friends.
If we don’t consciously create space for closeness, something else will occupy it. And the further apart we drift, the harder it is to find our way back to each other later.
PAP: The report is titled “Between Loneliness and Innovation: People and the Economy in the Age of AI.” What does loneliness have to do with the economy?
Z.D.: A person doesn’t leave their loneliness at the company door. A lack of bonds, and treating employees as a resource rather than as people, lowers their sense of worth, motivation and engagement. We need to know that we matter to someone and that what we do has meaning. This applies to the work environment as well. It confirms the principle behind Gallup’s famous Q12.
We were interested in the differences in reported job satisfaction between people who live alone and those in larger households. There is a belief that a person living alone can devote themselves fully to work and be more available. Yet among those who live alone, only 48% report satisfaction with their work, compared with 62% in households of at least two people. This prompts us to look at the importance of bonds in professional life, too.
Innovation needs collaboration, an exchange of ideas and a readiness to confront ideas with one another. It is hard to develop when everyone shuts themselves in their own world. I believe loneliness stopped being solely an individual matter or a social problem long ago. It also matters for the functioning of companies and, as a result, of the entire economy, and that is without taking into account its previously mentioned impact on demographics.
This, by the way, is not just our intuition. International analytics firms, including Gartner, put loneliness on the list of key business risks for 2025. Poles themselves also see this connection: in our study, as many as 66% of respondents admitted that loneliness weakens collaboration in teams, and 57% believe it hinders the building of an innovative economy.
PAP: How can an employee tell whether a company really cares about relationships? By fruit Thursdays and a team-building retreat?
Z.D.: Apples in the kitchen and an ergonomic office won’t change an organization’s culture if the way of managing and the interest in other people don’t change. The fundamental difference is whether we employ a human being or see in them only a resource to be used.
It’s worth starting with the simplest things. I hear many stories from young people about recruitment processes in which they are promised a response, and then no one replies or calls back. They send hundreds of résumés and don’t even get a thank-you. How are they supposed to build trust if, right at the start, they feel unnoticed?
Relationships are built in everyday contacts. Do we keep our word? Do we find a moment to take an interest in someone as a person? Do we give them the sense that they matter? This is where safety and trust begin, and without them it is hard to talk about openness and relationship-building.
PAP: How can opportunities for such encounters be created? In the “Two Hours for the Family/for People” campaign, you encourage employers to do this as well.
Z.D.: This year saw the 15th edition of our HumanBE campaign – Two Hours for the Family/for People (Dwie Godziny dla Rodziny/dla Człowieka), whose goal is to counter the crisis of bonds and loneliness. More than 4,000 companies from over 50 countries around the world have joined. Every year we propose a simple topic that helps start a conversation and connects generations. We’ve already had dreams, sports and flavors; this year it is culture across generations. We also prepare AskME cards with questions about memories, music, concerts or art. Sometimes it is precisely that first simple question that’s missing to start a dialogue.
Companies organize group outings and movie nights and photo contests, and they create maps of places recommended by employees. Along the way, they discover that someone paints, sings or plays in a band, though no one knew it before.
On the theme of flavors, cookbooks were created with contributions from employees, with multigenerational recipes and personal stories. Behind a recipe is a person, their family, their memories. We can see in a coworker a father, a mother, an enthusiast, someone who brings much more than the job description suggests.
When people feel noticed and have a chance to share what is important to them, their sense of belonging changes as well. It’s not enough to take people on a spectacular team-building retreat once a year. A relationship begins and happens in everyday contacts.
###
The study “Between Loneliness and Innovation: People and the Economy in the Age of AI” was conducted between April and June 2026 on an online panel using the CAWI method, on a sample of 1,050 people ages 18–64 who are employed or who take care of a household.
Interview by Mira Suchodolska (PAP)
