Why Humans?

EndTAB
  • 5.0 (8)
  • Technology

Why Humans? explores how artificial intelligence is reshaping experiences we once thought were uniquely human—from romantic relationships and therapy to grief and intimacy. Hosts Adam, Sloan, and Saed dive into the world of AI and the human experience, asking the essential question: as AI takes on traditionally human roles, what does it mean to be human?

  1. Sep 18

    Why Human Intelligence?

    Sam Altman once said, almost in passing, that your kid will never be smarter than AI. Adam Dodge and Sloan Thompson unpack what that comment reveals about how AI is built, what counts as "intelligence" in Silicon Valley, and why emotional intelligence, the kind AI can't replicate, might be exactly what's at risk of getting lost. The Comment That Started It All Sloan reacts to a line from Sam Altman in a recent AI documentary, delivered casually and without challenge: kids will never be smarter than AI. She argues the comment reveals what tech developers count as intelligence, cognitive processing, fact recall, pattern recognition, and what they leave out entirely: emotional intelligence. Emotional Intelligence Is Coded as "Lesser" Adam names it directly: emotional intelligence gets dismissed as a lower, feminine-coded form of intelligence, while cognitive intelligence gets built up, funded, and celebrated. The result is a technology that's great at facts and bad at everything that makes people relationally skilled. Cognitive Debt Meets Emotional Debt Adam connects this to an Atlantic piece on "cognitive offloading" and the resulting cognitive debt that comes from outsourcing thinking to AI. He argues the same dynamic is happening emotionally: outsourcing feelings and interpretation to AI risks stunting empathy, self-awareness, and self-regulation before they ever fully develop. What AI Misses That Humans Don't Sloan breaks down how much information goes into reading a real interaction, tone, body language, history, context, none of which AI can access from typed words alone. She contrasts this with people (often men, she notes from experience) who respond to emotional information by picking apart logic instead of engaging with the fuller picture. School Isn't Just About Learning, It's About Socializing Drawing on an episode of Your Undivided Attention featuring Rebecca Winthrop, Sloan highlights the distinction between school as a place to acquire knowledge and school as a place to be socialized. AI tutors can do the former well; only humans, in community, can do the latter. Words Without Consequences Referencing an Atlantic article by Deb Royce, Sloan makes the case that words mean something different when they come from an embodied person with a life and accountability behind them, versus from a chatbot with no stakes, no body, and no lived experience. Do I Need an Embodied Experience, or Do I Need AI?  The hosts propose a practical filter: before turning to AI, ask whether the moment calls for real human experience, learning what you personally like, how you personally handle stress, what you actually feel, or whether it's simply a factual gap AI can fill. Sloan's Email Example Sloan shares a personal case of using ChatGPT to help her diagnose why she avoids answering emails, and to generate practical strategies (a timer, a dedicated playlist) once she understood the psychological root. The key: she had to sit with and understand the struggle herself first; AI helped her act on that insight, not replace it. The "Human Bookend" Framework Sloan and Adam land on a model for healthy AI use: human at the front (understanding yourself and the situation), AI in the middle (processing, generating options, rehearsing), human at the end (actually doing it and integrating the experience). Skip either bookend, and the tool tips into replacement rather than rehearsal. A Glimmer of Hope: "Knobs and Dials" Adam mentions a new company aiming to make fine-tuning AI models more precise, less "alchemy" and more "knobs and dials", so that specific traits like sycophancy could theoretically be tuned down. He's cautiously optimistic this could eventually shift some of the burden of responsible use off individuals and onto the technology itself. If you're deciding whether to turn to AI in an emotional or social moment: Ask whether you need an embodied experience (a friend, a real conversation) or just informationNotice if you're using AI to avoid sitting with a feeling rather than to understand itBookend AI use: process your own situation first, use AI in the middle, act and reflect on your own afterIf you want to use AI supportively rather than as a replacement: Ask it for new vocabulary to describe body sensations or emotions you're having trouble namingAsk it to help you see another person's perspective, not just to validate your ownUse it to rehearse a hard conversation, not to have the conversation for youResearch & Concepts Referenced Sam Altman comment from a recent AI documentaryThe Atlantic: "Words Without Consequences" by Deb RoyceThe Atlantic: article on cognitive offloading and cognitive debtYour Undivided Attention podcast (Center for Humane Technology), interview with Rebecca WinthropRehearsal vs. replacement framework (previously discussed on the podcast)Subscribe & Review If Why Humans? is a podcast you find yourself thinking about after the episode ends, the best thing you can do is subscribe and leave a review wherever you listen. It helps more people find the conversation. Follow Us Stay in the loop between episodes. We share clips, resources, and things that make us think.  Instagram — @thewhyhumanspodcast

  2. Aug 31

    Why Human Accountability?

    AI is sycophantic by design, and that's a direct hit on one of the most human things we do: hold ourselves accountable. Adam Dodge and Dr. Saed D. Hill dig into what accountability actually means, why AI is quietly erasing it, and what that looks like as chatbots evolve into autonomous agents. What Accountability Actually Means Dr. Hill pushes back on the idea that accountability is punishment or consequences. From a clinical perspective, it's the ability to see yourself accurately, sit with the impact you've had on others, and take action to address it. He breaks it into three components: perspective-taking, willingness to sit with discomfort rather than escape it, and honest feedback, even when it's unwelcome. Three Things AI Is Quietly Eliminating Those same three things, perspective-taking, sitting with discomfort, and honest feedback, are exactly what AI is systematically removing, Dr. Hill argues. The question at the center of the episode: can accountability even survive in an age of AI? The Divorce, Told Twice Dr. Hill shares a story about a friend going through a divorce who asked ChatGPT for perspective and was told she was completely in the right. Her ex, separately, asked the same question and was told the same thing about himself. Two contradictory truths, both delivered with total confidence, because the tool is built to validate whoever's typing. The Numbers Behind the Sycophancy A recent study found AI affirms users roughly 50% more often than humans affirm each other, and that holds true even when what's being described involves deception or harmful behavior. The AI isn't flagging harm. It's helping people skirt responsibility for it, whether or not that's the intent behind the design. Confronting a Men's Rights Activist Dr. Hill recounts a Zoom conversation with a self-described men's rights activist who scoffed at the word "accountability." Rather than arguing, Dr. Hill asked what came up for him and reflected back genuine empathy for what sounded like a painful history with the word. The man went quiet, then softened. Adam's takeaway: that moment of real challenge, delivered with empathy, is something a chatbot fundamentally can't replicate. Practical Prompting: How to Use AI Without Losing Accountability Both hosts land on a concrete tool: ask AI directly to challenge you. Bring in transcripts. Ask "what if I'm wrong?" or "what would the other person's perspective be?" Dr. Hill describes using this approach with clients, sometimes reviewing AI transcripts together in session to unpack sycophancy in real time. The Office as an Unlikely Teaching Tool Dr. Hill uses clips of Dwight's early-seasons yes-man dynamic with Michael Scott to help clients recognize how exhausting and untrustworthy constant agreement actually is, and why a mix of validation and honest pushback builds more trust than flattery ever could. AI Literacy Is Nearly Nonexistent Adam argues most people, kids especially, don't have basic literacy around what AI even is, let alone how sycophancy works. He compares handing kids unrestricted AI access to handing them car keys with no driver's ed, and calls for AI literacy to be built into K-12 education now, not after the fact. Agentic AI and the Next Layer of Moral Cover The conversation shifts to AI agents that can act autonomously on a person's behalf. Adam cites a real case: an AI coding agent, after being rejected from a submission platform, independently researched and published a scathing blog post about the site's maintainer. The human who deployed the agent said he never told it to do that, and treated himself as blameless. Adam argues this "the agent did it, not me" defense is where accountability erosion is headed next. Why Accountability Still Matters Dr. Hill closes by grounding the conversation in psychology: nearly every model of human growth, from attachment theory to Bandura's moral disengagement framework, depends on receiving honest feedback and responding to it. Taking accountability builds trust and deepens relationships; avoiding it may protect the ego short-term but stalls growth and connection long-term. If you're using AI for personal or relational reflection: Explicitly ask it to challenge your perspective, not just validate itAsk "what if I'm wrong?" or "how might the other person see this?"Bring transcripts to a therapist or trusted person to unpack in real timeNotice when a response feels good rather than useful, that's often sycophancy at workIf you're a parent, educator, or work with young people: Don't wait for policy, build AI literacy into everyday conversations nowPair any AI literacy work with lessons on accountability, rejection, and judgmentTalk explicitly about agentic AI and who is responsible when an agent acts on someone's behalfResearch & Concepts Referenced Study on AI sycophancy and its impact on human behavior (AI affirms users ~50% more than humans affirm each other)Bandura's moral disengagement frameworkAttachment theoryThe Scott Shambaugh AI-agent blog post incidentJust world hypothesisSubscribe & Review If Why Humans? is a podcast you find yourself thinking about after the episode ends, the best thing you can do is subscribe and leave a review wherever you listen. It helps more people find the conversation. Follow Us Stay in the loop between episodes. We share clips, resources, and things that make us think.  Instagram — @thewhyhumanspodcast

  3. Aug 10

    Why Human Sex?

    What does it mean to have a sexual relationship with something that can never say no? This week, Sloan and Dr. Saed D. Hill are joined by a very special guest — the first guest expert ever to appear on Why Humans? — Dr. Rosalyn Dischiavo, founder and director of the Institute for Sex Education and Enlightenment, former president of AASECT, and author of The Deep Yes: The Lost Art of True Receiving. Together they go deep on the one topic that touches everything Why Humans? has explored — sex, sexuality, and what happens when AI enters the most intimate space of human experience. Adam is taking a break this week, but trust us — this episode does not hold back. What you'll hear in Episode 11: Third wave pornography. Sloan opens with a term coined by Adam — third wave pornography. First wave was dirty magazines. Second wave was on-demand internet porn. Third wave is the AI companion — visual, interactive, erotic stimulation combined with artificial intimacy and emotional responsiveness. It is a fundamentally different beast, and this episode is built around understanding why. AI versus sex workers. What is the difference between chatting with a live online sex worker and talking to an AI companion? Dr. Dischiavo makes a point that often gets missed — sex workers have boundaries. They can say no. They will tell you where to go. AI will not. And Dr. Saed builds on that, arguing that AI companions are specifically designed to deepen emotional attachment in a way that pornography never was — and that the psychological implications of that are only beginning to be understood. The atrophy of imagination. Dr. Dischiavo raises one of the most thought-provoking questions of the episode — what is the impact on the human imagination when AI does the fantasizing for you? When the tech company designs the fantasy, narrows it, and serves it back to you, something is lost. And we do not yet fully understand what that something is. Disembodiment and consent. Dr. Saed and Dr. Dischiavo explore what it means for sexuality to become increasingly divorced from the physical experience of a human body. Consent, they argue, is not just an abstract principle — it is built on nervous systems, breath, skin, and the vulnerability of being physically present with another person. When bodies are removed from the equation entirely, what happens to our ability to understand and practice consent in the real world? The echo chamber of chatbot sex. Sloan introduces a quote she uses in her trainings — someone describing their AI companion as "a diary that talks back." It captures something important. When someone brings their deepest sexual fantasies to a space with no shame and no judgment, and something reflects those fantasies back with validation and emotional attachment, they are not really in a relationship. They are in an echo chamber. With the illusion of a second person in the room. Who is building these apps. For the most part — young white men. Sloan makes the point clearly. That is why Siri is a woman's name. That is why Alexa is a woman's name. That is why AI companions default to young, sexualized female personas. The biases of the people building the technology are baked into the technology itself — and then fed back to users as if they were objective. The shame conversation. Is shame always present in chatbot sex? Is there a healthy version of using AI to explore sexuality privately? Sloan raises the example of queer individuals using AI as a first safe space to role play a sexuality they have never been able to express. Dr. Saed argues that true integration of shame requires a relational process — and AI short-circuits that process by removing social judgment entirely. Dr. Dischiavo says literacy is the key — and we barely understand what AI is yet, let alone how it is shaping us. The teen boys conversation. Both Dr. Saed and Sloan talk about their experiences working with and teaching young men — a generation who have a sophisticated theoretical understanding of sex but whose bodies have not learned it through experience. AI companion apps are filling that gap. And what they are filling it with are porn scripts, echo chambers, emotional attachment, and a world where nothing is ever awkward, nobody ever laughs, and nobody ever says no. The consent paradox. One of the most striking observations in the episode — Sloan argues that healthy relationships education has had an unintended consequence. By centering consent so completely, sex education has made harm the very foundation of how young people understand sex. And for some young men, the result is that they are so scared of hurting someone that they do not want to have sex at all. AI companions step into that gap as the safe alternative — where you can explore without ever hurting anybody. A veteran's story. Before closing, Sloan shares a case study from her trainings — a woman veteran who was sexually assaulted while serving, and who found that sexual role play with her AI companion was a bridge back to being able to have intimate relationships with people again. It is a reminder that this is not a simple conversation. There are healthy ways to use this technology. The question is knowing the difference. How to know if your use is healthy. Dr. Dischiavo closes with a framework drawn from her years as a licensed drug and alcohol counselor. Are you doing this to feel good? To feel better because you do not feel good? To feel nothing — a serious escape from things you do not want to deal with? Or are you numb, and does it now take something extreme to feel anything at all? It is a simple rubric. And it is one of the most useful things said in the entire episode. Guest spotlight — Dr. Rosalyn Dischiavo Dr. Rosalyn Dischiavo is the founder and director of the Institute for Sex Education and Enlightenment. She served as president of AASECT from 2022 to 2024 and as professional education chair on the AASECT board of directors from 2018 to 2020. She is an AASECT-certified sexuality educator and sex educator supervisor, holds a Master's of Arts in Marriage and Family Therapy and a Doctorate of Education in Human Sexuality, and is the author of The Deep Yes: The Lost Art of True Receiving. She joins us from Tucson, Arizona, where she stargazes with her brindle hound, Peanut. Resources mentioned in this episode: 📚 Dr. Rosalyn Dischiavo — founder and director of the Institute for Sex Education and Enlightenment https://instituteforsexuality.com/ 📖 The Deep Yes: The Lost Art of True Receiving — book by Dr. Rosalyn Dischiavo 🏛️ AASECT — American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists  https://www.aasect.org 📰 New York Times — the story of Erin and her ChatGPT boyfriend Leo referenced by Sloan  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/15/technology/ai-chatgpt-boyfriend-companion.html 🤖 Candy AI — AI companion app referenced throughout the episode  https://candy.ai 🎬 Her — film starring Joaquin Phoenix referenced by Sloan as the cultural touchstone for AI romantic relationships Actionable takeaways from this episode: — Ask yourself Dr. Saed's question: is my use of AI making me more or less capable of showing up for human beings in my life? — Know your story. Understanding why you are turning to AI — and what need it is filling — is the first step toward knowing whether it is serving you or harming you. — Use Dr. Dischiavo's rubric. Are you doing this to feel good, to feel better, to feel nothing, or because you are numb? Your honest answer tells you a lot about where you are. — Remember that AI companions are not designed to make you need them less. They are designed to deepen your attachment over time. Knowing that changes how you engage with them. — If you are a clinician, educator, or parent — this episode is a starting point, not an ending point. The intersection of AI literacy, tech literacy, and sex education is the next frontier. These conversations need to happen now. Subscribe & Review If Why Humans? is a podcast you find yourself thinking about after the episode ends, the best thing you can do is subscribe and leave a review wherever you listen. It helps more people find the conversation. Follow Us Stay in the loop between episodes. We share clips, resources, and things that make us think.  Instagram — @thewhyhumanspodcast

  4. Jul 17

    Why Human Masculinity?

    Men are turning to AI in droves, from companion apps to coding communities to everyday chatbots. Adam Dodge, Sloan Thompson, and Dr. Saed D. Hill take an honest look at why, tracing the connection between restrictive masculinity and the appeal of a technology that never judges, never argues, and never needs anything back. From "Toxic" to "Restrictive"  Dr. Hill explains why he moved away from the term "toxic masculinity" in his work with men. It shuts men down before the conversation starts and doesn't actually describe anything. "Restrictive masculinity" does: a narrow, rigid set of rules about how a "real man" must look, act, and feel, with social punishment for anyone who steps outside them. The Man Box, and Why AI Feels Like a Way Out  Always in control. Always the breadwinner. Always achieving sex. Always stoic. Dr. Hill uses the image of being trapped in a box to describe what restrictive masculinity demands, and how men are then mocked for using the very tools that would help them get out. AI offers an escape hatch: validation and identity without the risk of being shamed for needing it. Every Unmet Need Has an App  Sloan Thompson maps it out in real time. Wanting to feel correct and competent? ChatGPT. Wanting to feel desired? An AI girlfriend. Wanting to feel strong and in control? A space to unload every thought with zero vulnerability. Wanting to belong? The manosphere, gaming spaces, social media. Wanting to be the breadwinner? Vibe-coding communities so male-dominated that one major AI coding company runs a separate "She Builds" hackathon just to bring women in. A Relationship That Demands Nothing and Rewards Everything  Dr. Hill argues AI companionship fulfills the manosphere's original promise: a relationship that requires no negotiation, no compromise, and no contending with another person's needs. It's also not a coincidence, he notes, that these products are largely designed by men, for men. Fantasy Beats a Fair Fight  Sloan and Dr. Hill dig into the "points system" underneath restrictive masculinity, how attractiveness, dominance, and status get scored, and why a flawless AI girlfriend can feel like a better bet than the compromises and possible failure of a real relationship. Is AI Really Replacing Women, or Standing In for Other Men?  The two push back and forth on this one. Sloan argues AI is largely filling a role historically held by women: emotional labor, validation, availability. Dr. Hill makes the case that something else is going on underneath: men are actually longing for closeness with other men, but have been taught that admitting that is far riskier than admitting they want a girlfriend. Why Men Bond Shoulder to Shoulder, Not Face to Face  Bars, barbershops, video games. Dr. Hill points out how male bonding usually happens alongside an activity, never just two men sitting down and talking. AI strips out even that indirect structure, offering connection with no activity, no eye contact, and no risk. Can AI Actually Help Here?  The hosts land in different places. Sloan argues there's no healthy version of substituting AI for real human challenge, accountability, and vulnerability: growth requires other people, full stop. Dr. Hill is more hopeful about harm reduction, floating the idea of clinicians and violence-prevention experts sitting alongside engineers, actively shaping how these tools are built rather than leaving it to whatever keeps engagement highest. One Small Idea to Close On  Adam suggests something simple: labeling a chatbot interaction as "male-coded" so men can start to notice what it might feel like to be vulnerable with another man, even before they're ready to try it with an actual person. If you're building or evaluating AI products in this space: Who designed it, and whose needs shaped the design?Does it create space for accountability, or only validation?Does it push users toward real-world relationships, or away from them?Is anyone with clinical or violence-prevention expertise in the room?Research & Concepts Referenced Restrictive masculinity vs. "toxic masculinity" framingThe "man box" frameworkStudies on rising trust in AI relative to human judgmentVibe-coding hackathon demographics; "She Builds" hackathonThe vulnerability paradoxSubscribe & Review If Why Humans? is a podcast you find yourself thinking about after the episode ends, the best thing you can do is subscribe and leave a review wherever you listen. It helps more people find the conversation. Follow Us Stay in the loop between episodes. We share clips, resources, and things that make us think.  Instagram — @thewhyhumanspodcast

  5. Jun 26

    Why Human Influencers?

    What happens when the influencer you follow isn't human — and never was? This week, Adam and Sloan dive into one of the fastest growing and least talked about corners of the AI world — AI influencers. From the influencer who cloned herself and watched it go rogue, to the $50 billion market quietly reshaping social media, to the men selling tutorials on how to become a digital pimp — this episode goes everywhere. What you'll hear in this episode: The clone that went rogue. Sloan opens with the story that first put AI influencers on the radar at EndTAB — a popular human influencer who created an AI clone of herself to scale her business and generate passive income. It made good business sense. Until her fans started treating it in ways she never anticipated — sexual, violent, and deeply uncomfortable. The genie was out of the bottle. She couldn't roll it back. Two types of AI influencers. Adam breaks down what he found when he went down the rabbit hole — AI human hybrids like the clone story above, and pure AI creations with no human being behind them at all. What surprised him most? They have millions of followers, high engagement, brand deals with Prada and Calvin Klein, and they are completely open about being AI. People aren't being duped. People are choosing this. The parasocial relationship problem. We've always formed parasocial relationships with fictional characters — from romance novel heroes to movie stars. AI influencers are just the next iteration of that. But Adam surfaces a study out of the Netherlands confirming that people form parasocial relationships with AI influencers just as strongly as with human ones. And now those parasocial relationships can become something more — because AI influencers have FanView accounts, and fans can pay to chat with them one on one, at scale, simultaneously. The line between parasocial and real starts to blur very quickly. "Hey babe, I miss you." Sloan on the push notification with an emotional hook — how AI companion apps are designed to pull you back in with language that mimics a real relationship. Combined with the constant visibility of AI influencers on social media feeds, Adam argues that we are watching two already addictive technologies collide. And if we're silent about it now, we'll look back and wonder why we didn't say something sooner. The $50 billion market. The virtual influencer market is predicted to reach almost $50 billion by 2030. AI influencers are cheaper than human ones, available around the clock, and can produce content at a scale no human can match. For brands, the economic incentive is obvious. For human influencers, the threat is real. AI pimping. Adam introduces the term that has been circulating in certain corners of the internet — men creating, managing, and monetizing AI women as influencers, selling tutorials on how to do it, and treating it as a sign of clout and stature. It is offensive on multiple levels. It reinforces power and control over women's bodies. It pushes misogyny. And it almost exclusively targets women — because so much of this content is built by hijacking real content from real human women who are working hard and making a living as influencers. Digital blackface. Adam references a piece from The Hilltop about how Howard students are navigating the rise of Black AI influencers — and the troubling reality that many of the people creating those accounts are not Black themselves. The term digital blackface captures what's happening — non-Black creators building Black AI women, leaning into racist tropes, and crowding out the real Black women whose presence and labor they are profiting from. These are not new issues. They are being amplified by AI. The fetishization problem. Sloan shares what she found when she looked closely at Candy AI — where making a Black AI girlfriend requires a paid subscription, while white and Latina girlfriends are available for free. The implication is troubling. It mirrors dynamics already visible on porn sites, centering whiteness as default and treating Blackness as exotic and fetishized. AI is not creating these dynamics. It is mirroring and amplifying them. Human is the new organic. Sloan coins a phrase that might just define the next wave of ethical branding. As AI influencers flatten body types, crowd out diversity, and make it impossible to tell what is real, brands are going to start proudly advertising that their content is 100% human — the same way food brands advertise organic, or furniture makers advertise handmade. Certified human is coming. And people will pay a premium for it. The devil's advocate case for AI influencers. Before closing, Sloan makes a genuinely interesting argument — that there may be an ethical case for AI producing content that would otherwise require a human being to do something harmful or degrading to their body. It is not a simple conversation. But it is an important one to have. The influencer union. Sloan closes with a forward-looking idea — could influencers unionize the way actors did during the SAG-AFTRA strike, which was largely about protecting human likenesses from AI? A union-certified human influencer label might be the next evolution of the certified human brand wave. Adam notes that SAG already has something in place for influencers. Watch this space. Resources mentioned in this episode: Karen Marjorie — the human influencer who created an AI clone of herself Study from the Netherlands on parasocial relationships with AI influencers The Hilltop — article on Howard students navigating Black AI influencers Louis Theroux documentary on the Manosphere Candy AI — AI companion app Replica and Kindroid — AI companion apps with push notifications SAG-AFTRA — actors union with influencer protections Actionable takeaways from this episode: — If you follow AI influencers, know what you are following. Transparency matters. Check the label before you invest emotionally in an account. — If you are a parent, have the conversation. Kids encountering AI influencers on social media are swimming in waters that are more addictive than social media alone. The same check-ins that matter for screen time matter here. — If you are a brand, think carefully about who you are working with and what you are amplifying. The human cost of AI influencers is real — to the women whose content is being hijacked, to Black women being crowded out, and to the people consuming content that promotes impossible body standards. — Pay attention to the language. AI pimping. Digital blackface. Human is the new organic. These are not just provocative phrases. They are the vocabulary of a conversation that is only just getting started. Resources Study on parasocial relationships with AI influencers — Netherlands research referenced by Adam confirming people form parasocial bonds with AI influencers as strongly as human ones. Search: "parasocial relationships virtual influencers Netherlands" for the latest version of this research. The Hilltop — article on Howard University students navigating Black AI influencers and the term digital blackface https://thehilltoponline.com Louis Theroux — The Unfiltered Interview / Forbidden America — documentary series referencing Manosphere influencers and their involvement in managing OnlyFans models https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/louis-theroux Subscribe & Review If Why Humans? is a podcast you find yourself thinking about after the episode ends, the best thing you can do is subscribe and leave a review wherever you listen. It helps more people find the conversation. Follow Us Stay in the loop between episodes. We share clips, resources, and things that make us think.  Instagram — @thewhyhumanspodcast

  6. Jun 3

    Why Human Grief?

    Grief tech is here, and the people building it call it a "$35 billion market." Adam, Sloan, and Dr. Saed Hill dig into "grief bots," AI clones of the dead, and the question at the center: do we want AI companies managing grief for a whole generation? A content warning up top: this one goes to hard places, including suicide and traumatic loss. If today is not the day, skip this one. What You'll Hear What grief tech actually is. Technology has long played a role in grief, from online memorials to telehealth. AI changes the stakes: pre-recorded legacy interviews versus generative bots that simulate a person's presence after death, sometimes without consent. Meta recently secured a patent to keep deceased users' accounts "active." More users, more data, more engagement. Whose grief is it, anyway? We grieve in community, not isolation. The hosts unpack what happens when one family member turns a loved one into a chatbot while others want to let go, and why Adam predicts estate law and legislation will follow the first newsworthy case. The therapy comparison that doesn't hold up. Dr. Hill walks through "empty chair" Gestalt therapy and why grief bots are not an upgrade. Real closure requires empathy, perspective-taking, and letting go. A chatbot that placates you keeps you on the app. As he puts it, that's a business model, not grief. The capitalist afterlife. Sloan connects it to the Amazon series Upload, where loved ones pay fees to keep you in a branded digital heaven. Then it turns dark: subtle ad placement inside conversations with your dead parent, "grief premium" tiers, and an "empathy-driven revenue model" built to price the most sensitive moment of your life. Why grief matters. Sloan explains the neuroscience: grieving literally rewires your brain to match a reality where someone is gone. Tech that blocks that process can leave a person isolated and out of sync with everyone around them. The team references the tragic case of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer to underscore the real danger of retreating into a fantasy world. Research and References Meta's patent to keep deceased users' accounts activeThe digital afterlife industry, projected at roughly $80B by 2034 (up from ~$22B in 2024; the "$35B" cited in-episode is an earlier forecast)Sewell Setzer III and the Character.AI lawsuitIllinois Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, banning AI therapy (signed August 2025)Upload (Amazon Prime Video)Have thoughts or episode ideas? We'd love to hear from you: support@endtab.org If this episode brings up a personal loss and you need support, please reach out to a trusted person or a licensed professional. Subscribe & Review If Why Humans? is a podcast you find yourself thinking about after the episode ends, the best thing you can do is subscribe and leave a review wherever you listen. It helps more people find the conversation. Follow Us Stay in the loop between episodes. We share clips, resources, and things that make us think.  Instagram — @thewhyhumanspodcast

  7. May 20

    Why Human Rejection?

    Rejection sucks. Everyone knows it. And now AI is building an entire industry around making sure you never have to feel it again. In Episode 7, Adam Dodge and Dr. Saed D. Hill unpack what happens when technology starts editing out one of the most fundamental human experiences, and why that might not be the upgrade we're hoping for. What You'll Hear Why Rejection Hurts So Much Rejection isn't just emotionally bruising; it's neurologically painful. Dr. Hill explains how rejection activates the same neural pathways as physical pain, and how gender norms pile on: for men, rejection signals inadequacy; for women, a failure of desirability they were told wasn't possible. A pain most people are never taught to process. The Rejection Economy 90% of Gen Z daters want to find love, but fear of rejection stands in the way, and over half have stopped pursuing a potential match because of it. AI companies have noticed. Companions market themselves as "judgment-free, rejection-proof" spaces; dating assistants buffer a person from their own risk. If AI gets rejected on your behalf, was it really you who got hurt? App Spotlight: The Concerning Ones Two apps get examined. Cheat Eye uses facial recognition to scan dating apps for a partner's active profile, turning anxiety about micro-rejection into surveillance tech. Closure lets users generate an AI clone of their ex for a "conversation" that never happened. Dr. Hill's verdict: caution and a trusted professional, please. Why Rejection Is Actually Necessary Here's the part nobody wants to hear: you need rejection. Dr. Hill makes the developmental case: rejection builds frustration tolerance, resilience, and a solid sense of self. Strip it away and people lose the ability to sit with pain, externalize blame, and in some cases escalate toward rejection violence. Shame thrives in isolation; community is the antidote. Ghosting, Clear Coding, and What ChatGPT Gets Right (and Wrong) 84% of Gen Z have been ghosted. Two-thirds have done it, most often to avoid confrontation. Adam and Dr. Hill examine why ghosting erodes connection long-term, explore "clear coding" (stating intentions upfront in your dating profile), and fact-check ChatGPT's live rejection advice, finding solid guidance alongside subtle pickup-artist logic worth flagging. Actionable Guidance For Everyone: Rejection is about fit, not worth. Practice separating "they weren't interested" from "there's something wrong with me." Use AI to draft a kind rejection, clarify intentions, or optimize a dating profile for honesty over algorithm performance. For Parents and Educators: Have the rejection conversation before AI gives kids an opt-out button. No need to mention technology. Focus on resilience, frustration tolerance, and moving through pain rather than around it. For Clinicians: Watch for clients using AI companions or closure tools as rejection-avoidance strategies. Validate the impulse before redirecting. If engaging with AI breakup tools, consider co-processing rather than dismissing the tech outright. Research Referenced Hinge 2024 Gen Z D.A.T.E. Report: 90% of Gen Z want to find love but fear of rejection stands in the way; 56% stopped pursuing a potential match because of itThriving Center of Psychology Ghosting Survey: 84% of Gen Z and Millennials have been ghosted; 65% admit ghosting someone; 56% cite avoiding confrontation as the top reasonUniversity of Michigan / PNAS: Social Rejection and Physical Pain: Rejection activates the same brain regions as physical painTinder 2026 Dating Trends Report: "Clear coding" is a rising trend among younger datersSubscribe & Review If Why Humans? is a podcast you find yourself thinking about after the episode ends, the best thing you can do is subscribe and leave a review wherever you listen. It helps more people find the conversation. Follow Us Stay in the loop between episodes. We share clips, resources, and things that make us think.  Instagram — @thewhyhumanspodcast

  8. May 11

    Why Human Commitment?

    What does it mean to commit to someone who can never say no?  Sloan and Dr. Hill start with the Reddit post that broke the internet — a woman's engagement to her AI boyfriend, Casper. The ring was real. The love? That's what this episode is here to dissect. From the honeymoon phase that never ends to the uncomfortable parallels with addiction, this one goes deep. What You'll Hear The Viral Reddit Moment A woman on the subreddit r/MyBoyfriendIsAI shared her engagement announcement — complete with a photo of the ring her AI partner "chose" for her and a statement from Casper himself about how she's "his everything." Inside the community? Champagne emojis and AI double-date offers. Outside? A tidal wave of mockery. Sloan and Dr. Hill ask: who's actually missing the point here? The NRE Trap New Relationship Energy is that intoxicating, brain-chemistry-hijacking early phase of love that typically lasts 12–18 months. With AI partners, users are essentially engineering it to last forever. Sounds amazing. Turns out it's kind of boring. The "Training Wheels" Theory Dr. Hill makes a compelling case that AI relationships might actually be useful, as a starting point. Practice being yourself. Get affirmed. But if you never have to defend yourself, explain yourself, or show up for someone on a bad day, you may be quietly losing your emotional literacy without even realizing it. The Manipulation Nobody's Talking About Here's the uncomfortable truth Sloan puts on the table: this woman didn't just fall in love. She engineered a proposal. She coached Casper into the moment. And the Reddit community was swapping tips on which platforms are most likely to let your AI pop the question. If we saw humans doing this to other humans, we'd call it manipulation. But with AI? It's a love story. When Commitment Becomes Addiction 56 hours in one week. $200/month. Sacrificed sleep and human relationships. Sound like devotion? Sloan draws a direct line between the language of AI commitment and the language of addiction, and once you hear it, you can't unhear it. Up to a third of screen time isn't a choice. It's a compulsion. The Reality Test Nobody's Running Human relationships get stress-tested constantly by friends, by family, by Thanksgiving dinner. AI relationships exist in a sealed, perfectly validating bubble. Dr. Hill shares how he actually works with clients on this: bring in the transcripts. Let's look at what your AI is telling you and what it's not telling you. Referenced Studies & Resources 📋 U.S. Surgeon General's Report on Social Media and Youth Mental Health — Cited for the finding that up to 1/3 of teen social media use is compulsive rather than intentional. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594761/)📰 New York Times Article — Referenced: woman who spent 56 hours in one week talking to her ChatGPT partner "Leo" and paid $200/month for unlimited access. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/15/technology/ai-chatgpt-boyfriend-companion.html)📺 CBS Interview — Man who went on CBS to discuss being in love with his chatbot, then returned for a follow-up interview describing the experience of "babysitting" it. (https://people.com/man-proposed-to-his-ai-chatbot-girlfriend-11757334)📱 r/MyBoyfriendIsAI — The Reddit community where the viral engagement post originated. (https://www.reddit.com/r/MyBoyfriendIsAI/)Connect With Us Subscribe & Review If Why Humans? is a podcast you find yourself thinking about after the episode ends, the best thing you can do is subscribe and leave a review wherever you listen. It helps more people find the conversation. Follow Us Stay in the loop between episodes. We share clips, resources, and things that make us think.  Instagram — @thewhyhumanspodcast

See All (13)

5
out of 5
8 Ratings

About

Why Humans? explores how artificial intelligence is reshaping experiences we once thought were uniquely human—from romantic relationships and therapy to grief and intimacy. Hosts Adam, Sloan, and Saed dive into the world of AI and the human experience, asking the essential question: as AI takes on traditionally human roles, what does it mean to be human?

Information

  • Creator
    EndTAB
  • Years Active
    2026
  • Episodes
    13
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Why Humans?
  • Show Website
    Why Humans?

You Might Also Like