Reimagining Human-AI Relationships: A Positive Future for Chatbots, Social AI, and the Phygital Self
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many valid concerns about Artificial Intelligence (AI) that must be taken seriously. However, historically, technological progress has sometimes led to unexpected benefits. This essay begins with an imaginative fictional future-history, followed by an academic discussion. The fictional narrative acts as a jumping-off point for exploring the potential benefits of social AI, or AI that interact socially with humans, (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Grok etc) in three areas: (1) social AI agents as relationship partners, (2) how our interactions with AI might affect our human relationships, and (3) social AI's influence on shaping self-identity. Consistent with macromarketing, we examine how social AI in marketing might affect people's lives far beyond the economic sphere. And in keeping with the theme of this special issue on phygital marketing, we conclude with suggestions on how these dynamics could impact phygital (physical and digital) marketing strategies and consumption trends.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it