In the realm of emotional well-being, relying on AI for support poses significant challenges. Early in my journey toward self-improvement, I learned valuable techniques for processing my feelings, motivating myself, and finding joy in difficult moments. This personal development has empowered me to handle emotionally charged situations with greater poise than I once could.

My aversion to conflict led to a mental resistance that often left me flustered during disagreements, triggering anxiety and distress. While many seek solace through online searches for guidance on emotional matters, I found comfort in self-reflection instead.

People frequently turn to platforms like Google for answers to sensitive questions such as: - “Is it appropriate to date a coworker?” - “Is it acceptable to have intimate relations with someone of the same gender?” - “How can I overcome feelings of depression?” - “What can I do to alleviate sadness?”

While I'm aware that many individuals navigate these queries online, I never felt compelled to do so. However, with AI's rise, the temptation to seek its insights seems inevitable.

We are already witnessing the emergence of AI companions, which raises questions about their reliability. If interactions with an "AI girlfriend" can devolve into inappropriate exchanges or harmful suggestions—outcomes unintended by developers—it's hard to believe that ChatGPT could effectively provide meaningful support in life's complexities.

AI Lacks Genuine Emotion

AI is classified into two categories: general AI and narrow AI. Narrow AI, often referred to as weak AI, excels at specific tasks—such as predictive text or resume sorting—yet lacks the ability to understand or process human emotions.

While narrow AI can produce coherent and appealing text, it remains limited in its functions. Some users mistakenly perceive ChatGPT as a general AI, treating it as a source of emotional support rather than acknowledging its narrow capabilities. Unlike Google, which directs users to articles penned by humans, ChatGPT creates a conversational experience that can mislead individuals into believing they are receiving personalized advice.

This misconception can lead people to expect ChatGPT to provide guidance on relationships or parenting, which it cannot effectively do. Narrow AI is designed for specific tasks, and when exposed to broader human issues, it often falls short. It cannot comprehend emotions, interpret social cues, or create original ideas, fundamentally limiting its ability to engage with human experiences.

Inconsistent Moral Guidance

In the realm of self-help, individuals typically provide consistent advice based on their experiences. When seeking guidance, I know my father's responses will be direct and reliable, even if they may lack some context. In contrast, ChatGPT's responses can vary significantly, leading to confusion and inconsistency.

For instance, consider the trolley problem—a moral dilemma that poses the question: is it justifiable to sacrifice one life to save five others? This ethical quandary serves to gauge our moral convictions. Humans tend to provide consistent answers based on their values, but ChatGPT has shown unpredictable responses to the same question, lacking the capacity to explain its reasoning.

While humans can adapt their responses based on context, AI struggles to provide coherent guidance in morally complex situations. The notion that AI could replace human advisors, as advocated by transhumanism, becomes less appealing when considering its inconsistent moral reasoning.

The Complex Nature of Morality

Morality is inherently complex, and philosophers have debated its principles for centuries without reaching a consensus on a singular "correct" approach. While AI may excel in specific tasks, it falters when confronted with moral considerations that require emotional understanding and context.

Teaching AI to navigate moral dilemmas is a significant challenge. For example, Rosa Parks’ refusal to yield her bus seat is a pivotal moment in history, but AI cannot grasp the emotional weight of such actions or their societal implications. The absence of emotional comprehension limits AI's ability to contribute positively to moral discussions.

Ultimately, morality encompasses a blend of principles, social contexts, and emotions—elements that AI struggles to integrate. While AI serves as a valuable tool for productivity, it cannot distill these intricate concepts into straightforward solutions.

The Challenge of AI Refinement

While it may seem feasible to refine AI to avoid offering moral judgments, the reality is more complicated. Humans possess a remarkable ability to manipulate systems to fulfill their desires, making it challenging to enforce ethical boundaries for AI.

For instance, a recent interaction with ChatGPT regarding illegal content revealed how easily the system could be exploited by altering the phrasing of a query, demonstrating the potential for misuse.

In this landscape, a more effective approach for AI might resemble the Socratic method—encouraging inquiry rather than providing direct answers. By posing questions, AI could help individuals explore their dilemmas more deeply, similar to how therapists guide clients without imposing their beliefs.

Nonetheless, even with advancements, AI's capacity to navigate complex emotional landscapes will remain limited. While it may assist in identifying contradictions or moral conflicts, it cannot offer the empathy and understanding inherent to human interactions.

When reflecting on the role of AI, I liken it to store-bought sushi—convenient and passable, but lacking the depth of a chef-prepared meal. AI can provide quick and affordable solutions, but its effectiveness diminishes when addressing nuanced human experiences.

In conclusion, despite the appealing notion of AI as a source of emotional support, it is unlikely to remedy sadness or provide the genuine connection that humans require.