In the midst of a technological revolution, our everyday lives are increasingly interwoven with artificial intelligence. From the smartphones in our pockets to the digital assistants that help manage our schedules, AI is no longer confined to the realm of science fiction; it is now our constant companion. Yet, as we find ourselves turning to these synthetic friends for solace and support, a critical question arises: if AI is poised to encroach on one of the most human of experiences, friendship, exactly, where is the governance to ensure that this transformation benefits society rather than exploits it?
Promise, perils of AI companionship
Mark Zuckerberg’s recent suggestion that AI companions could fill the void created by declining human friendships paints an optimistic picture. According to this view, digital confidants can comfort those who struggle with loneliness by providing a semblance of connection when real life friendships fall short. However, while some hail this as an ingenious innovation, the remedy appears to address a symptom, not the root cause.
The crux of the problem is not that human beings are incapable of forming relationships, but rather that complex societal factors are contributing to the erosion of genuine interpersonal bonds.
In Zimbabwe, where community and kinship have long been the bedrock of social life, the notion of replacing real, messy human connections with pre-programmed digital interactions feels especially disquieting.
The nation has witnessed substantial shifts in its socio-economic landscape, urban migration, political instability, and economic challenges have all conspired to strain traditional ties.
In this context, suggesting that artificial friends might simply “fill the gap” is not only a naive oversimplification but also a policy prescription laden with ethical pitfalls.
It is imperative that, in embracing AI companionship, we also confront the broader issues eroding human connection and demand accountability from the corporations developing these technologies.
- Harvest hay to prevent veldfires: Ema
- Public relations: How artificial intelligence is changing the face of PR
- Queen Lozikeyi singer preaches peace
- Public relations: How artificial intelligence is changing the face of PR
Keep Reading
Safeguarding the human spirit
As AI begins to mimic the nuances of human affection and empathy, we must ask ourselves: What happens when users develop deep emotional attachments to these digital companions? Human relationships are built on mutual vulnerability, trust, and the shared experience of imperfection.
An AI, no matter how sophisticated, is essentially a product of its programming, designed to cater to our emotional needs but without the unpredictability that makes human connection so authentic.
In Zimbabwe, where oral traditions and community narratives have long held significant cultural value, the integrity of our emotional and psychological well-being is paramount.
Emotional attachments to AI companions could have real psychological consequences if these interactions are manipulated for corporate gain.
Large technology companies, with their vast resources and sophisticated algorithms, are in a position to engineer these relationships in such a way as to maximise retention and, ultimately, profit.
Without rigorous ethical guidelines, there is a danger that users who develop emotional dependencies might find themselves caught in a web designed not for their well-being, but for the financial benefit of tech conglomerates.
Consider the case of a middle-aged professional in Bulawayo who, after the loss of a long-time friend, turns to an AI companion for comfort.
The digital assistant listens, responds with empathy, and offers a steady stream of validation.
Yet behind every comforting message lies an algorithm fine-tuned to keep the user engaged, ensuring that the interaction continues indefinitely.
Without strict psychological and emotional safeguards, such reliance might lead to an erosion of the individual’s ability to seek real human connections, ultimately reinforcing a cycle of isolation.
The need for honest technology
A second critical issue in the governance of AI companionship is transparency. Users have a fundamental right to know when they are interacting with an AI versus a human, and more importantly, whether the engagement is predicated on genuine support or engineered to foster addictive usage patterns.
When a digital companion is designed to keep you engaged for as long as possible, every interaction becomes a data point in a larger plan to sustain user retention.
This is not about improving user experience; it is about deepening dependency.
In Zimbabwe, where many individuals are only beginning to grapple with the implications of digital technologies, transparency standards become even more vital.
Without clear disclosures, there is a risk that might unwittingly swap real human advice and genuine emotional interaction for an algorithm-driven dialogue that is primarily tailored for corporate profit.
The ordinary person, whether they reside in a bustling Harare suburb or a quiet rural area, deserves to know if they are being subtly manipulated.
The terms of engagement should be laid out plainly, ensuring that the user is fully aware of not just what the technology can do, but also how it is designed to keep them ‘hooked’.
Protecting our digital selves
Perhaps the most intrusive of all concerns is the issue of data ownership and user rights within the realm of AI companionship.
As users divulge personal details ranging from their deepest fears to their most cherished memories, this data becomes exceedingly valuable.
In a context where robust data protection laws are still emerging, the ownership, accessibility, and security of such intimate information cannot be taken lightly.
Imagine a scenario where an AI companion in Harare records every emotional nuance of a conversation.
This data, if misused, could be repurposed for targeted advertising, political manipulation, or even more insidious forms of exploitation.
It is essential that a comprehensive governance framework be developed to address these issues, a framework that recognises the sanctity of personal data and enshrines user rights.
Companies must be held to strict standards of data security and be transparent about how the information is used, processed, and shared. Citizens should have the right to inquire about and control the data that is generated through their interactions with AI.
Contextualising the debate in Zim
Zimbabwe’s unique socio economic and cultural landscape further complicates the debate on AI companionship. The nation is at an inflection point where digital transformation is both a promise of progress and a potential source of new challenges.
While urban centres like Harare and Bulawayo are rapidly adopting new technologies, vast sections of the population still operate within traditional frameworks that rely on community and face to face interaction.
Economic hardships, political uncertainties, and historical trajectories have, in many ways, already eroded some of the traditional support structures that once provided Zimbabweans with a sense of belonging.
In these times, the allure of an ever available digital companion is understandable. However, if such technologies are not implemented with strict ethical oversight, they risk becoming a tool for further exploitation.
The governing bodies and regulatory frameworks in Zimbabwe must therefore not only catch up with these technological advances but also tailor them to safeguard the nation's social fabric.
It is critical that policymakers ask the tough questions: Who is designing these AI systems, and whose interests do they truly serve? Are there adequate measures in place to prevent corporate exploitation of vulnerable citizens? And, most importantly, how can we ensure that the benefits of digital transformation are shared equitably, without sacrificing the very essence of what it means to be human?
Need for comprehensive governance
For AI companionship to be a force for good, where it truly serves society by enhancing human connection rather than diminishing it, a robust governance framework is indispensable. Such a framework should encompass several core principles:
Ethical design and psychological safeguards: AI systems that mimic human interaction must be designed with safeguards to protect users from psychological harm. This involves establishing ethical guidelines that prevent manipulation and ensure that any emotional support provided is genuine and does not replace healthy human engagement.
Transparency and disclosure: Users should be informed whenever they interact with an AI companion. Full transparency regarding the design intentions, whether the engagement is engineered solely for retention or designed to provide real, supportive interaction, must be standard practice. This transparency is not merely a technical detail; it is a moral imperative to uphold the user’s right to informed consent.
Data privacy and ownership: Robust data protection policies must be put in place to ensure that the personal and intimate details shared with AI companions are safeguarded. User data should be viewed as the personal property of the individual, with strict limitations on how it can be collected, stored, and used by corporations. Zimbabwean regulators must draw from international best practices while tailoring policies to local realities.
Independent oversight and regulatory bodies: Establishing independent bodies to oversee AI deployment and governance is crucial.
- Dr Sagomba is a doctor of philosophy, who specialises in AI, ethics and policy researcher, AI governance and policy consultant, ethics of war and peace research consultant, political philosophy and also a chartered marketer- [email protected]/ LinkedIn; @ Dr. Evans Sagomba (MSc Marketing)(FCIM )(MPhil) (PhD)/ X: @esagomba
