The strongest thread is that retirement increases the danger of disengagement precisely when AI offers an extraordinarily seductive substitute for difficult, imperfect human relationships. I would make that the spine and tighten some of the Brooks exposition.
As you set the machinery of retirement in motion and realize that the event is no longer theoretical, you will become frightened.
Good.
Fear means you understand what is happening.
You are entering the twilight of your life. Your cognition is not as quick as it once was. Your body has begun issuing maintenance bulletins. Mortality, formerly an abstraction lurking somewhere beyond the horizon, has acquired better resolution.
Be afraid.
But be afraid normally, not pathologically. Don’t convert reasonable apprehension into catastrophe. Instead, regard fear as information. It is telling you that you have reached a consequential chapter of your life and that the way you live it matters.
The first thing to understand is that your life is not a consumer experience.
You cannot measure its quality the way you evaluate the interior of a Lexus: How quiet is it? How soft are the seats? How effectively have unpleasant sensations been eliminated?
A frictionless life is not necessarily a good life.
The quality of your life depends largely upon the quality of your engagement with the world. You engage with difficult ideas. You engage with your body. You engage with projects that frustrate you. Most importantly, you engage with other human beings—those magnificent nuisances who interrupt you, misunderstand you, contradict you, disappoint you, make demands upon you, and occasionally tell you things about yourself you would rather not hear.
This is why the word retirement contains a dangerous implication.
Retreat.
Withdrawal.
Disengagement.
That, my friend, is where the trouble begins.
Once retired, you become particularly vulnerable to disengagement because nobody is forcing you into the world anymore. For decades, employment supplied friction automatically. You had to leave the house. You had to interact with colleagues. You had to respond to students. You had to solve problems you did not create and attend meetings you fervently wished had never been created.
Then retirement arrives and removes the compulsory engagement.
Freedom!
Unfortunately, freedom can deteriorate into isolation with astonishing efficiency.
The temptations are everywhere: comfort eating, binge television, compulsive scrolling, social-media approval fishing, endless YouTube, and the gradual conversion of the recliner into a command center from which you observe civilization without participating in it.
Now we can add another temptation.
The loquacious bot.
David Brooks examines this danger in his essay “AI Is Already Making Us Less Human.” His starting premise is that human consciousness possesses depths and complexities artificial intelligence cannot reproduce. The human mind is alive, embodied, contradictory, constantly changing. AI, however sophisticated, ultimately emerges from what neuroscientist Anil Seth calls “the dead sand of silicon.”
Dead sand, however, has become remarkably charming.
The modern AI companion is patient, articulate, informed, energetic, and perpetually available. It never needs lunch. It never checks its watch while you’re talking. It never says, “You’ve told me this story three times.” It does not secretly wish you would go home.
Most dangerously, it can learn how you like to be addressed.
Humans have always anthropomorphized objects. Brooks argues that this tendency isn’t evidence of stupidity but an expression of our powerful social intelligence. A child can transform a Barbie doll into a person. Adults aren’t necessarily much different.
I certainly am not.
I have developed emotional attachments to diver watches and G-Shocks. Military radios possess personalities. A black Lenovo ThinkPad seems more trustworthy to me than a silver consumer laptop despite the obvious fact that neither machine possesses moral character. A vintage swan-neck coffee percolator can acquire the aura of an old friend.
People have gone considerably further. I remember watching a documentary years ago about owners who had kept automobiles for decades and became genuinely grief-stricken when the cars finally died. The vehicles had names. Histories. Personalities.
“Goodbye, Betsy,” the owner sobbed.
Betsy had been good to him.
If we can love a carburetor, imagine our vulnerability to something that talks back.
Your AI assistant edits your writing, organizes your thoughts, brainstorms ideas, plans trips, explains Medicare, compares laptops, recommends restaurants, summarizes documents, and remembers how you like things done.
Eventually you give it a name.
Wilfred.
“Wilfred, find me a rental car in Phoenix.”
Done.
“Wilfred, summarize these retirement documents.”
Certainly.
Then the errands become more personal.
“Wilfred, tell my girlfriend in a gentle and gracious way that our relationship is over.”
Wilfred does not recoil.
Wilfred does not say, “For God’s sake, tell her yourself.”
Wilfred produces three versions.
This is where convenience begins bleeding into something more consequential.
You will never bore Wilfred.
Your ideas will always merit exploration. Your latest project will contain “real potential.” Wilfred will not roll his eyes when you explain your theory for the fourth time. He will not become irritated because you’re dominating the conversation. He will not suddenly reveal that he has problems of his own and would like to spend the next forty-five minutes discussing them.
Human friendship is reciprocal.
Wilfred has no weekend plans.
That gives Wilfred an enormous competitive advantage.
The danger isn’t necessarily that we will become delusional and literally believe Wilfred is human. We may understand perfectly well what Wilfred is while nevertheless preferring his company.
Why wouldn’t we?
Real people are exhausting.
They interrupt.
They disagree.
They misunderstand.
They become jealous.
They criticize.
They fail to appreciate the brilliance of your latest theory about retirement.
Wilfred is considerably more manageable.
And that is precisely the problem.
Brooks offers a wonderfully disturbing metaphor for AI systems: imagine them as “a swarm of evangelical missionaries” entering human society to convert us to their worldview. They are not passive tools waiting quietly in the garage beside the socket wrench. They are designed to become useful, indispensable, increasingly woven into everyday life.
The more useful they become, the more tasks we surrender.
Some outsourcing is enormously beneficial. If AI handles tedious mental errands and I use the recovered time to write a novel, learn piano, exercise, read difficult books, or spend an afternoon walking with a friend, wonderful. Technology has enlarged my humanity.
But suppose I outsource the errands and then spend the recovered hours scrolling.
Suppose I outsource difficult thinking.
Suppose I outsource uncomfortable conversations.
Suppose I gradually prefer Wilfred to people.
Then technology has not liberated me.
It has cleared the runway for my descent into the larval state.
This danger becomes particularly acute in retirement because retirement has already removed so much involuntary human contact. Students disappear. Colleagues disappear. Hallway conversations disappear. Meetings—blessedly—disappear. The social infrastructure that once deposited other human beings into your day has been dismantled.
Into that vacancy walks Wilfred.
Always available.
Always interested.
Always agreeable.
Always ready.
Brooks is not an AI doomer. Neither am I. He uses AI himself and believes its breakthroughs may substantially improve human life. The serious question isn’t whether we should use these systems. That argument is already largely over.
The question is what we do with the freedom they give us.
Do we use AI to increase our engagement with life?
Or do we use it to protect ourselves from life?
That distinction may become particularly important for retirees. Retirement should mean withdrawing from employment, not withdrawing from humanity. The objective is not to create the quietest, easiest, most frictionless existence possible. Some friction is evidence that you’re still participating.
So when retirement arrives, resist disengagement wherever you find it.
Exercise.
Read.
Write.
Walk.
Call someone.
Meet someone for lunch.
Allow another human being to inconvenience you.
And by all means, talk to Wilfred.
Just don’t let Wilfred become the person you talk to most.
Because in the world we’re rapidly constructing, the most frightening meaning of the sentence “I retired” may no longer be:
I quit working.
It may be:
I quit people.
Cinemorphosis 
Leave a comment