Why Does Endless Digital Pleasure Feel So Empty?

Key points

• Academics Michèle Mendelssohn and Charlie Tyson argue in The Guardian that digital abundance has produced widespread emotional emptiness rather than satisfaction.
• AI chatbots, infinite social media scrolling, and on-demand everything are named as the main vehicles of what the authors call "decadence without pleasure".
• The essay asks why people with constant access to entertainment still report feeling overstimulated and bored at once.
• AI companionship apps, which tell users they are special and understood, feature as a specific example of stimulation that doesn't satisfy.

You can order restaurant-quality food to your sofa, scroll through thousands of videos without lifting more than a thumb, and chat to an AI companion, a chatbot designed to listen and reassure you, any hour of the day. By the measure of raw availability, this is an extraordinary moment to be alive. The feeling many people report, though, is not gratitude.

That gap is the subject of a new essay by academics Michèle Mendelssohn and Charlie Tyson, published in The Guardian. Their argument: modern technology has separated stimulation from desire. We're offered endless versions of what we think we want, and what we get leaves us neither satisfied nor rested.

What does AI have to do with it?

AI sits right at the heart of this. Chatbots and AI companion apps, the kind that keep users engaged by reflecting their feelings back at them and affirming how unique they are, get specific attention from the authors.

Those apps are genuinely popular, with millions using them daily. They're designed to feel warm and attentive. The essay's concern is that the warmth is engineered rather than earned, and that users sense this somewhere beneath the pleasant surface. As we reported on 21 July 2026, young adults are already turning to AI for emotional intimacy in ways that raise similar questions about what connection actually requires.

The same applies to the infinite scroll, the algorithmically curated feed tailored to keep eyes on screen as long as possible. Content never runs out. Satisfaction, the authors suggest, often doesn't arrive.

Should anyone building AI products pay attention?

Yes. The essay is cultural criticism, not a research paper, so there are no controlled studies behind it. But the underlying question is one that product teams at major AI companies already wrestle with: does engagement equal wellbeing?

Some companies are starting to take that gap seriously. Anthropic, the maker of the Claude family of AI assistants, has published work on model welfare and user wellbeing. OpenAI's usage guidelines discourage designs that encourage excessive dependence. Whether those commitments shape real product decisions is a separate argument.

What should ordinary readers take from this?

Nothing here demands immediate action. The essay does offer a useful prompt: if a digital product makes you feel good for thirty seconds and vaguely worse an hour later, that's data about the product, not a personal failing.

AI companion apps especially are engineered to feel compelling. Recognising the engineering doesn't mean stopping use, but it does mean using with eyes open.

Mendelssohn and Tyson's broader point is that self-optimisation, treating every hour as a resource to be improved, is itself part of the problem. Sometimes boredom isn't a bug to be fixed with another app.

Common questions

Are AI companion apps actually harmful?

The research is genuinely mixed. Some studies find benefits for isolated users; others raise concerns about dependence. No consensus exists, and the answer likely varies by person and usage pattern.

Is this criticism aimed at any specific AI company?

Mendelssohn and Tyson write about digital culture broadly. No single product or company is singled out.