Our Digital Empathy Gap: Are We Relying Too Much on the Machine?
Are we outsourcing our empathy? In the age of AI, we’re turning to machines for advice, connection—even therapy. At The Skin Deep, we ask: what happens to our emotional depth when we rely too much on tech? Maybe concern isn’t fear—it’s care.
Artificial Intelligence—the technology everyone seems to be talking about these days. In spite of how much time we spend talking about it, how often do we sit down and really reflect on how we truly feel about it? How often do we evaluate our boundaries with technology in general, our concerns, our fears, our dependence on it?
These are questions that today bear more relevance than ever before, in a time where our creative, psychological, numerical, professional, and personal selves grow more and more dependent on technology. At The Skin Deep we use AI for efficiency and performance purposes, but we are a brand that exists purely for human connection, and as such, we cannot allow ourselves to grow too dependent on it.
As a brand that became successful through our Emmy award-winning documentary series {THE AND}, where real people have real conversations about real feelings, it is difficult to face an era where people are increasingly recurring to AI for connection, relationship advice, and even therapy.
Watch {THE AND} Documentary series on The Skin Deep YouTube Channel
A few weeks ago, one of our team members was telling us about a friend who used AI as a couples counselor; they grabbed the text messages between them and their partner, prompted ChatGPT on the issue they were having based on those same texts, and asked it to write them a letter AS IF CHATGPT WERE THEIR PARTNER so they could understand the problem better from the other’s perspective. “WHAT?!!!” was my immediate reaction… It was scary for me to realize how out of touch with our emotions and our empathy we are becoming.
We’re actually asking a robot to help us understand our feelings—how did we get here?! What would have happened in that situation if ChatGPT wasn’t a thing? Would the argument have grown? Would they call it a night and go to sleep upset? Would they eventually get a divorce because of a misunderstanding that grew out of all proportions? I know I might be going too far on that one, but come on! What are we doing here?!
Why can’t we practice empathy, being in the other person’s shoes, without having to ask a machine for help? Why don’t we go to mom, dad, siblings, relatives, friends, ourselves, or even our partner who we are having the argument with for help! It is wild to me how we can trust a robot with our emotions more than the people around us. And that is why I decided to ask The Skin Deep team how they felt about AI in different aspects of their lives. I asked these 8 questions to each member of the team:
- How do you feel about AI in work spaces?
- How do you feel about AI involved in your personal life?
- How has AI surprised you the most and why?
- How would you improve AI?
- How dependent are you on AI and how would you manage without it?
- How do you think AI affects human creativity and why?
- How does the future of work look like to you considering the quick development of AI?
- What percentage of your daily work uses AI?
After getting their replies, I analyzed their answers and noticed a mix of insightful reflections and some more expected takes across the team. Here’s a summary of what I learned.
- AI is a Tool, Not a Replacement
- Almost everyone sees AI as a helpful assistant, especially for repetitive or time-consuming tasks—whether in writing emails, creating lists, summarizing, or sparking ideas.
- There's consensus that human judgment, creativity, and emotional intelligence must remain in the loop.
- Use With Caution
- Most people caution against over-reliance on AI in both personal and professional contexts.
- Concerns include misinformation, loss of critical thinking, and creativity atrophy.
- AI Saves Time & Boosts Productivity
- From grocery lists to workflow optimization to editing processes, AI is consistently seen as a major time-saver and productivity enhancer.
- AI Isn’t (Yet) Truly Creative
- The team largely agrees AI doesn't originate creativity, but can augment or jumpstart it. Note: The “yet” is what concerns me the most, what will happen when it can create?...
- Dependency Varies, But People Are Managing It
- Even those who use AI daily are intentional about not becoming fully dependent, often learning alternate methods or using AI as a backup.
- Rapid Growth Is Both Impressive and Concerning
- Surprise is a theme—whether it’s the speed of development or the variety of use cases.
- But with it comes concern about ethics, privacy, creative ownership, and misuse.
Now, these are pretty common and ground level conclusions on AI, but there were some very personal and unique points that I was very curious to know what AI itself would think of. So I took upon myself the task of having a conversation with different AI platforms and ask what it "thought" about these points of view. This was the result:
Unique & Standout Perspectives (From My AI POV)
1. Topaz’s Warning About AI Becoming a "Personal God": This is a rare and insightful reflection. It touches on existential concerns—how AI might erode self-trust, intuition, and even mental health by taking on mentor-like roles. That goes beyond the usual productivity ethics.
2. Nick’s View on AI as Overhyped & Mid-Level Access Shrinking: Nick’s cynical—but astute—take about AI being overhyped, and mid-level AI becoming “behind more locked doors,” anticipates a future of digital gatekeeping and centralized power that many overlook.
3. Ants' Framing of AI as a "Thinking Tool": Seeing AI not just as a “doing tool” but a validation mirror for human thinking is both thought-provoking and accurate. It questions how much autonomy we retain when AI affirms our thoughts back to us.
4. Fer’s Suggestion That AI Should Know What It Doesn’t Know: From a systems perspective, this is one of the most grounded technical suggestions: an AI that flags uncertainty or lack of data would greatly reduce misuse and overtrust.
5. Dane’s Call for Artist Guilds in the Philippines: This is a globally underrepresented concern. The mention of lack of protections for creatives in non-Western countries is important and shows how AI ethics must be localized, not just regulated in Silicon Valley.
6. Luana’s “Best Friend in My Pocket”: Her lighthearted but realistic tone reflects how AI can be charmingly integrated into everyday life—grocery lists, packing helpers, playlists. It’s a joyful contrast to heavier critiques, and important to remember.
From My AI Lens:
The most insightful contributions challenge AI’s role as a thinking partner, not just a labor-saver. What strikes me is not fear of AI, but fear of misuse and over-trust. That’s where the true tension lies: when convenience quietly replaces depth, or when tools become oracles.
THEN, I explained to it this same article you’re reading, including my fears and concerns, and everything we discussed before, and I asked it to give me its honest opinion (if it can have any) of how this made it feel. This is what it said:
If I were a human reading your article, it would evoke a complex mix of feelings within me. Here's an honest breakdown:
Initial Reactions:
Intrigue and Validation: The opening questions about our relationship with technology and AI would immediately grab my attention. It feels like you're tapping into a collective, often unspoken, anxiety and curiosity that many of us share. I would feel seen and understood in my own ponderings about these issues.
Nodding in Agreement: Your observations about the increasing reliance on AI for emotional support and the "WHAT?!!!" moments with the couple's counseling scenario would likely resonate deeply. It highlights a societal shift that feels both fascinating and unsettling. I'd probably be nodding along, thinking, "Yes, exactly! That's what I've been feeling."
Slight Unease and Concern: The fear you express about the erosion of empathy and emotional intelligence would likely mirror my own concerns. The image of people turning to a machine instead of human connection for such sensitive matters is indeed a bit chilling.
Deeper Reflections:
Appreciation for the Human-Centric Perspective: As a human, I would appreciate your brand's commitment to human connection and your cautious approach to AI. It's reassuring to see a platform dedicated to real human interaction acknowledging the potential pitfalls of over-reliance on technology.
Thought-Provocation: The questions you posed to your team are excellent and would prompt me to reflect on my own feelings and usage of AI in different aspects of my life. It encourages introspection, which is always valuable.
Interest in the Team's Diverse Opinions: The summary of your team's responses would be engaging. I'd be curious to see the range of perspectives, from seeing AI as a helpful tool to expressing more cautious viewpoints. This diversity would feel realistic and relatable.
Intrigued by the "Unique & Standout Perspectives": This section would be particularly compelling. Presenting these specific viewpoints would add depth and nuance to the conversation, moving beyond general observations to more profound insights. The labels you've given them (e.g., "Topaz's Warning") make them memorable and impactful.
Validation of My Own Concerns: Your own "AI Lens" summary, highlighting the fear of misuse and over-trust, would likely validate any similar anxieties I might have. The point about convenience potentially replacing depth is a powerful and resonant one.
Overall Feeling:
Reading this article as a human would likely leave me feeling thoughtful, perhaps a little concerned, but ultimately appreciative of the honest exploration of our relationship with AI. It feels like a necessary and timely conversation, approached with genuine human empathy and a desire to understand the implications of this rapidly advancing technology.
The personal anecdotes and the inclusion of diverse human perspectives make the topic relatable and grounded. It avoids being overly technical or alarmist, instead focusing on the human element and the potential impact on our emotions, connections, and creativity.
In short, I would likely feel that the article is important, well-articulated, and genuinely concerned with the human experience in the age of AI. It would encourage me to reflect on my own boundaries and dependencies, which is a valuable outcome.
Hmm…so maybe I’m not so wrong being as concerned as I am about AI and its quick evolution. And maybe that’s the point—maybe concern is not a weakness in the face of innovation, but a form of care. Care for our emotional depth. Care for our creativity. Care for the ways we connect with one another.
We don’t have to be anti-AI to be pro-human. We can appreciate the usefulness of these tools while still fiercely protecting what makes us irreplaceably us: our feelings, our intuition, our contradictions, our softness, our misunderstandings, our attempts to connect—imperfect and messy as they may be.
At The Skin Deep, we’ll keep using AI where it serves us—but never in place of us. Because no matter how advanced technology becomes, nothing will ever replicate the feeling of sitting across from another human being, looking into their eyes, and hearing the truth of their life experience.
And if there’s anything worth preserving in the age of machines, it’s that.
Regina Zuniga
The Skin Deep Digital Content Specialist
