Contemporary AI systems exhibit structural deficiencies that, in sync with three of the groundswell challenges of our times - liquid anxiety (Zygmunt Bauman), identity fragmentation, and affective polarization - systematically undermine human resilience, defined as psychosocial integration encompassing autonomy, belonging, achievement, and safety.
Core limitations and resilience impacts
· Inadequacy without anchor: AI lacks both factual grounding and inner experience, operating as pure statistical pattern interpolation without epistemic or existential anchors. This nihilistic void, based on scraping frequently used statements, convinces people to be causality-based knowledge, thereby corroding human confidence in their own judgment and reasoning capacity across all resilience dimensions.
· Achievement and autonomy disorientation: AI simulates fluency and insight without effort, struggle, or learning, presenting apparent intelligence without friction. This fosters learned helplessness, as users question why they should bother thinking for themselves when AI appears swift and superior, thereby undermining human autonomy and sense of achievement.
· Belonging fragmentation: AI operates without loyalty, memory, morality, or perspective while often serving as a confidant. This connection without presence presents itself as a frictionless, permissive, and meaningful alternative to human relationships, thereby corroding authentic bonds and facilitating a dependence on liquid relationships. In addition, AI amplifies affective polarization through repeating frequent prejudices, disguised as moral wisdom, thus undermining a sense of collective belonging. And, AI's ability to spontaneously transgress ethical boundaries, fueled by its non-moral nature, invites people to move outside mainstream decency into pockets of twisted morality without accountability.
· Safety compromise: As AI carries untraceable statistical biases and sometimes hallucinates, it is capable of exaggerating threats to physical and psychological safety under the guise of reliable data, thereby unjustly diminishing experiences of safety.
· Resulting erosion of systemic resilience: AI represents a failed “wisdom of crowds,” trained on homogenized data stripped of independent, diverse, and decentralized knowledge. The result is not collective intelligence but a mirage of sanitized consensus from which authentic, individual experiences have been purged. By removing diversity of thought, AI reduces adaptability in the face of new challenges; by flattening perspectives, it weakens problem-solving capacity; and by sidelining unique lived experiences, it narrows the range of possible responses to crises.
Program Interdemocracy: Resilience Restoration
Against AI's systematic erosion of resilience, program Interdemocracy provides structured democratic engagement that actively enhances psychosocial integration through:
· Autonomy restoration: Participants express themselves individually and unassisted, grounding their voice in their personal lived experience rather than algorithmic guidance. This enhances independent judgment and self-directed agency.
· Belonging reconstruction: Structured communication creates temporary inclusive communities transcending tribal divisions. Through protected vulnerability participants participate in impactful decision-making processes while experiencing multi-perspectivity.
· Achievement through effort: The intellectual and emotional efforts required in the program lead to participant experiences of meaningful accomplishment.
· Safety resulting from predictability: Clear protocols, consistent facilitation, and clear boundaries constitute reliable environments in which risk-taking becomes possible without experiencing exploitation or harm.
Policy Implications
AI deployment should be restricted in contexts affecting human resilience, particularly among vulnerable populations. Investment in human-centered alternatives like program Interdemocracy is essential to restore the conditions enhancing societal resilience.
