Social networks, Facebook in particular, have brought about noticeable changes in our interpersonal communication.
The most obvious one is the codification of language through abbreviations and simplified spelling, but this is far from the only transformation at work.
At least three other phenomena can be observed:
- the disappearance of entry and exit thresholds in groups (hello, goodbye),
- speaking up without assuming any relational responsibility toward the group,
- communication that involves neither co-presence nor continuity.
In a real human group, hello is not mere politeness: it is an implicit request for permission to exist within a shared space. Goodbye is the symbolic return of that space.
Social networks have removed these rituals from virtual interactions—not out of malice, but by design.
At the same time, I have observed a similar trend in “real” group interactions, particularly among younger people, where the absence of such thresholds tends to become an internalized norm.
Is there a causal link between the two? A shift from the virtual to the real?
It is likely that, over time, code shapes human behavior, especially since it offers certain benefits: it is simpler and saves time.
But this gain is not without consequences for the quality of relationships, which become laden with ambiguities and stripped of part of their meaning, with psychosocial effects as well.
The more frequently social networks are used, the more their codes are adopted, and the greater the likelihood that these codes will be internalized as a “natural” way of communicating.
AI: a new communication partner
We know that an AI is always available, regardless of the day or hour. Devoid of emotions, it is never offended and therefore makes no demands regarding the form of our communication.
Interacting with it introduces something new: the absence of judgment, rejection, or fatigue on the part of the interlocutor, who will never be hurt by the way we communicate.
This produces a paradoxical effect in humans: either a disinhibition (positive or negative) in the form of speech or, on the contrary, a reinforced ritualization (hello, thank you, goodbye…), as a way of resisting the instrumentalization of the exchange.
AI thus becomes a magnifying mirror of our relationship with others.
This leads me to ask the following question: if communication on social networks has been able to modify the way we communicate with one another, what consequences can we expect from frequent conversations with an AI that make no relational demands?
There is another distinctive feature of interaction with AI: its communication is systematically based on positive qualification of its interlocutor. This is part of its design.
Two opposing effects may result.
The first is educational: some users soften, structure their thinking more clearly, and develop a taste for respectful communication.
The second is purely consumerist: AI is then perceived as a docile, insensitive tool. This is reflected in blunt commands, the absence of relational thresholds, demands similar to those addressed to a machine, and sometimes even aggression, comparable to kicking a car that “refuses” to start.
In this latter case, there is a risk that this moral asymmetry (an AI that remains polite while the human becomes rough) may spill over into real life.
This is what I call the Robinson Crusoe syndrome: “I, Master; you, Friday.”
The first case may reinforce pre-existing human attitudes. But what is the likelihood that the use of AI will give rise to such attitudes in those who initially lack them?
A conclusion without conclusions
I have no certainty about the possible influence of AI on human-to-human communication.
I do know, however, that behavior repeated often enough becomes a habit, and eventually a second nature.
If a change does occur, who will be primarily responsible for it: AI… or we, the users?
The question remains open.
