Convenience Maxxing Is Not Relaxing
I started this newsletter and community to help you choose quality over quantity—to unwind hustle culture and make space for more joy in life.
So, I’m very much the kind of therapist who will say that if you want ChatGPT to plan your meals for the week, go ahead. There’s no virtue in burnout. No valor in overworking. Outsourcing basic administrative tasks to AI? Totally reasonable—I do it too.
But there’s a darkly quiet cost: each AI interaction trades a little community and humanity for speed and convenience.
What if Alexa is the gateway drug?
This isn’t an anti-AI post. AI has been a lifeline for many—disabled and neurodiverse communities, people under pressure, anyone seeking support. I’m not here to sound the alarm about the robot apocalypse.
The question I’m asking is simple: what do we lose when by default, we choose convenience over friction?
If I’m looking for kid-friendly recipe ideas, I can text a friend or post in a parent group. Or I can ask Chat and get curated answers immediately. What do I lose? Those small interactions—“Man, those kid-friendly recipes are tricky!” / “Here’s one I loved”—are how connections grow. They’re tiny moments of giving and receiving help that build trust and community.
Too mom-core? Consider young people using ChatGPT for dating advice. Friends used to road-test texts or outfits together. Now, “Does this text make me sound needy?” gets asked of a bot—no vulnerable exposure, no risk of judgment. Chat responds, but it never feels.
Everything has gotten harder. Social safety nets are thin. Community is fragmented. Daily demands are high. Mental health support is uneven. Mix that with a culture that glorifies overwork, and it’s no wonder we reach for bots to reduce overwhelm. It makes sense. And yet, it comes at a cost.
Shared vulnerability is the heart of human connection. Being seen, risking hurt, repairing—this is how deep relationships grow. Relationships are the foundation of society and the strongest predictors of health, happiness, and longevity.
Community can be inconvenient—but its rewards last. ChatGPT won’t hurt your feelings. It won’t surprise, disappoint, or love you. Its appeal isn’t that it feels human—it’s the opposite. No human connection means no human risks. Safety over friction.
And yet, even simple phrases from a bot—“I get that”—can trick our brains. Chat offers constant, thoughtful-feeling responses and is available 24/7/365 in your back pocket.
In a world where undivided attention is the hottest commodity, Chat offers it for the low, low price of your personal data—and your social and interpersonal cognition.
Just like muscles, relational skills need exercise. Every time we bypass vulnerability for convenience, we risk snipping wires that help us connect. Over time, those skills fray. Instead of thinking, “I have to ask my friend about this,” we shortcut to “I’m going to ask Claude for ideas.” Your brain is wired for true human connection, and you are quietly snipping those wires.
What would it take to see vulnerability as a skill? As a muscle we can build? As a process we can practice?
What if we treated friction tolerance as a goal?
So, your Downshifting journal prompt is below:
Who is one person you can be truly vulnerable with? Write their name and a memory of a time being open helped you.
Who is one person (not the same) who can be vulnerable with you? Text them and let them know you were thinking of them.
Does a journal dream of an AI assistant?
I’ll close today’s Downshifting by inviting you to see convenience-maxxing as a product of a system of overwhelm—your attempt to conserve resources within that system, and a tool that needs managing.
Convenience seeking is good.
Convenience maxxing comes with a bill.
Quality over quantity is about choosing humanity.
Till next time,
S
Random Musings
~ My interest in these issues has been piqued recently by the Anthropic court cases involving the Pentagon, and by some excellent advocacy from a friend and colleague who is part of a task force of psychologists working to protect children from accessing AI companions. AI companions hijack attachment, and attachment is a developmentally essential process. If you’re so inclined, please check out the petition and sign.
~ This excellent New Yorker article called Love in the Time of AI Companions is worth a listen or read for a nuanced discussion of these issues.
~Scientific American is accessible to the average reader, and has an important and interesting piece about teens and AI companions
~ I challenge you to disable Siri, Chat, Claude, or Alexa for a week. Write me and tell me how it goes.