\n<\/p>\n
Subscribe here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube <\/em><\/p>\n Are your parents addicted to their phone? In this episode of Galaxy Brain<\/em>, Charlie Warzel explores how technology is affecting an older generation of adults. Instead of a phone-based childhood, Warzel suggests, we may be witnessing the emergence of a phone-based retirement\u2014one shaped by isolation, algorithmic feeds, and platforms never designed with aging users in mind.<\/p>\n To untangle whether this is a genuine crisis or a misplaced moral panic, Warzel speaks with Ipsit Vahia, chief of geriatric psychiatry at Mass General Brigham\u2019s McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and a leading researcher on technology and aging. Vahia emphasizes that older adults are anything but a single category, and that screen use can be both protective and harmful, depending on context. The key, Vahia argues, is resisting reflexive judgment. Ultimately, this is an issue not of screens versus humans, but of how families navigate connection in a world where attention is mediated by devices in every age group.<\/p>\n The following is a transcript of the episode:<\/em><\/p>\n Ipsit Vahia:<\/strong> Don\u2019t go, You\u2019re spending too much time on the phone.<\/em> Instead, perhaps ask, What are you watching on your phone? What apps are you into? This is what I do with my phone. <\/em>You could use their phone use as a conversation starter, as a way to meet them where they are, as a way to perhaps enter their world rather than expecting them to jump straight into your world. And, you know, it can just be the basis of strengthening connection rather than breaking it.<\/p>\n Charlie Warzel:<\/strong> I am Charlie Warzel, and this is Galaxy Brain<\/em>. About a year ago, around the holidays, I began to hear a similar complaint. People were heading home, often with their kids in tow, to be with family. It was there that they noticed that their parents, or grandparents, or older relatives were behaving differently.<\/p>\n Broadly, the complaint was that their older loved ones seemed consumed by their devices\u2014constantly on TikTok or Instagram or Facebook, watching vertical-reel videos. Sometimes they said they found it hard to hold a conversation. In multiple instances, people reported that some of these adults seemed to not pay much attention to their grandchildren.<\/p>\n Most of the people that I spoke to recognized it pretty quickly. It was the same thing they\u2019d seen in their own kids: a screen-time problem. So, naturally I was curious. I wanted to get a sense of the scale of this. So I asked around on social media. I got dozens of responses over the year. From young people, from older people. Lots, lots of people.<\/p>\n Some older folks, they wrote in to tell me that they felt bad about how much time they were beginning to spend on social media. Others told me they\u2019d found joy in the process and that there was no problem and I was over-hyping it. But many confirmed the anecdotes. Some feared that their loved ones were growing depressed or anxious as a result of a problematic relationship with their screens.<\/p>\n Others worried about older relatives falling victim to scams. Almost all of them, though, stressed that this felt like an emergent phenomenon\u2014something that had popped up since the pandemic. I heard stories like this one from Josh.<\/p>\n Josh:<\/strong> It\u2019s super interesting to watch my kids and my dad interact in the same space. With my kids, they love screens. They\u2019ll spend an hour most mornings watching Bluey<\/em> or Sesame Street<\/em> or something. But when it\u2019s off, they generally switch gears. They\u2019ll go bike, they\u2019ll do gymnastics, they\u2019ll play board games. They engage with the world around them. My dad, on the other hand, is constantly glued to his screen.<\/p>\n He\u2019s reading the news; he\u2019s scrolling through his email. With my dad, there is no off switch. When we look at photos from his trips to see us, they show the kids engaging with their grandma, playing games, being silly, while grandpa\u2019s in the background playing a game on his iPad.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> Or this one from Kim.<\/p>\n Kim:<\/strong> I\u2019m 55. I have tween twin girls. I worry a lot and spend a lot of time controlling their screen time. And it\u2019s kind of a joke, because if they saw the amount of screen time that I have in a day, it is way more.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> Kyle worries about what his parents are seeing.<\/p>\n Kyle:<\/strong> It\u2019s really tricky to talk to my parents about anything news-related.<\/p>\n My parents are both, you know\u2014they\u2019re very intelligent, they\u2019re thoughtful people. But media literacy is a problem for them in a way that it isn\u2019t for my teenage kids who were kind of raised with an understanding of the dynamics of digital content. I mean, we all spend our days staring at screens. But the screens that my parents are staring at is this really toxic combination of Facebook and Fox News.<\/p>\n So it gives them these distorted views of things. You know, like: Portland is violent; New York City is super dangerous; immigrants are selling fentanyl to schoolkids; isn\u2019t [Zohran] Mamdani anti-Semitic?<\/em> You know, that kind of thing. And it\u2019s hard to break through that information bubble. I\u2019ll call my mom out sometimes for sharing disinformation online. But like, how do you tell your mom she\u2019s participating in a Russian disinformation campaign? I sound like the crazy person in that conversation.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> But perhaps the most affecting one came from a nurse in the United Kingdom<\/p>\n who told me what she sees in her ward.<\/p>\n Nurse:<\/strong> I\u2019m a nurse in the U.K., working in an inpatient ward. Most of our patients are in the 50-plus age group, and the majority have smartphones or iPads. When you\u2019re stuck as a patient in the hospital, a lot of the time you\u2019re bored or lonely or both. That can mean loads of really excessive screen time. It\u2019s probably the 50-to-75 age group I\u2019m most worried about, because they\u2019re tech savvy enough to be where they want to be online, but they\u2019re not necessarily media literate.<\/p>\n They might not recognize harms or understand how algorithms funnel consumption in certain directions. Some of it is fairly benign, like being obsessed with fake-AI animal stuff or compilation videos of babies. And sometimes it\u2019s actually been pretty funny, like when folk end up in an autoplay cul-de-sac of Chinese-language videos.<\/p>\n But I do think the negative effects of excessive scrolling are bleeding through more, mostly in the anti-immigration stuff we hear. And the conspiracy thinking, medical distrust too.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> These testimonies struck me in part because they sound quite a lot like the concerns voiced for years by parents about children and devices. In the last decade-plus, there have been endless panics\u2014many warranted, and others less borne out by the evidence\u2014about children and screens. That their young minds are being influenced or warped by devices designed to take advantage of them. In most cases, screen panics position children as defenseless, even agentless.<\/p>\n They\u2019re confronting this force that\u2019s powerful enough to cause problematic behaviors among their underdeveloped minds. But now it seems the problem exists on the opposite side of the age spectrum. Data suggest there\u2019s a reason people might be noticing this more now, because more people are aging into a retirement era with more fluency with smartphones and tablets and social media. On YouTube, for example older people are among the platform\u2019s fastest-growing demographic. It\u2019s possible that the pandemic and the attendant isolation accelerated all this adoption, from rideshare apps to Zoom. The confluence here seems very real. Older individuals may have extra time, and they may be more socially isolated than other demographics\u2014and they\u2019re seeing their retirement era just collide with this extremely powerful algorithmic world of social networks, apps, on-demand streaming services, and even the arrival of generative AI.<\/p>\n These are things that confound people of all age groups. But older people are not by any means a monolith, and technological tools are very clearly lifelines for aging people. As well as tools that can bring great joy, information\u2014help them live full and creative lives. This is a really complicated issue, and so I wanted to speak with an expert and find the perfect guest here.<\/p>\n Dr. Ipsit Vahia is the chief of geriatric psychiatry at Mass General\u2019s McLean Hospital. He\u2019s the director of its technology and aging laboratory, and he\u2019s been studying this phenomenon\u2014and more importantly, working with patients in clinical settings. He joins me now to talk about all of this.<\/p>\n Dr. Vahia, welcome to Galaxy Brain<\/em>.<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> Thank you for having me. Delighted to be here.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> So you head up the technology and aging laboratory at McLean Hospital. Can you tell me what you all do there?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> Sure. So it\u2019s a clinical-research laboratory that\u2019s focused on understanding the way older adults use technology, and then also leveraging technology in a clinical setting with older adults with dementia or other mental-health challenges.<\/p>\n So we have a broad range of areas in which we do research. This includes early diagnostics, technologies for monitoring and supporting clinical decision making. But they\u2019re also developing interventions using tech.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> So how did you get into this line of work, especially working with people on the furthest side of the age spectrum there?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> There\u2019s actually an origin story there. When I was a trainee, it was when smartphones first came about, and I think I remember this incident very specifically. It was the year 2009. I was a trainee in California, and my wife and I were out for dinner with friends, and we had a 4-year-old child in tow. And he was doing what 4-year-olds do. He was boisterous, and I saw a simple thing. Again\u2014this is circa 2009, so this is quite common now.<\/p>\n But in 2009, I had never seen this before, where my friend took out his smartphone and gave it to his child. And the child was engaged with it, and we didn\u2019t hear a peep from him. We made it through four courses of dinner. Glass of wine, even.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> Very common now.<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> Now it\u2019s default. But back then, the thing that it really made me think about was that: If this engagement with the screen could sort of stabilize the behavior of a child, could it do the same for someone that was, you know, functioning at the level of a child? Which is to say: someone with dementia. Could we use these devices to engage them? Could we use these devices to reduce agitation?<\/p>\n A little after that, when iPads came out, there was a different incident. So when I was working on the inpatient unit, we had a routine. And the routine would be that every morning started out with everyone gathering in the community area. And we would just read from the newspaper. And this was intended to sort of create the sense of community. A shared activity that brought everyone together. It also let us assess how people did in that group setting, because it\u2019s a predictor of how they might do when they were on the outside. Now, on the morning that I was supposed to lead the meeting, the newspaper never showed up.<\/p>\n It was stolen, lost; we don\u2019t know. But this was when iPads had just come out, and I happened to have a personal iPad with me. And an interesting thing happened that morning where, in the absence of the newspaper, I was able to pull out the newspaper\u2019s website on the iPad. And we kind of went through the same exercise, but now it was digital.<\/p>\n And what happened was someone raised their hand and asked me\u2014can you access only The San Diego Union-Tribune<\/em>? I was training at UC San Diego, so that was the local paper. And I said, well, no, I can access any newspaper that has a website. Now, this was a Monday morning, and it was a very specific question. He said, \u201cI\u2019m from Pittsburgh. Can you tell me what they\u2019re saying about the Steelers game last evening?\u201d And so I did. I was able to pull up the column, and we talked about that when this happened. Another person raised their hand, and he\u2019s like, \u201cWell, that\u2019s great. I\u2019m from St. Louis. Can you find out what they\u2019re saying about the Rams last evening?\u201d And so I was able to do that.<\/p>\n And now, suddenly everyone was asking not for this one-size-fits-all newspaper reading, but they were able to get what was most important to them. And that was sort of the other big moment where I realized that you could, you know\u2014with this device that we already had figured out engages people\u2014we could also personalize the intervention.<\/p>\n And in many ways it was not about the tech at all. It was about what the tech made possible. And there\u2019s a difference, because I think, to this day, some of the way we think about this is about the tech. But I\u2019ve always thought about technology as a conduit to problem-solving and an intervention.<\/p>\n So as a clinician, the thing that we anchor our work around is: What is the patient need? Or, what is the clinical problem? And then think about\u2014is the technology we have before us able to solve some of these?, And that served us well. I think that served us well.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> \u200aSo tell me a little bit about\u2014you work with this elderly population; you\u2019re working on these types of interventions.<\/p>\n You\u2019re also deeply attuned to the way that they use and interact with technology. Broadly speaking, how would you classify how people on this side of the age spectrum are using technology? Are they a monolith? Are they extremely different and varied? Like, how would you describe, you know, the elderly\u2019s interactions with technology?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> Thanks for that question. I think that\u2019s the question that really gets at the heart of it all. So, I think if our listeners learn exactly one thing from this entire podcast, it should be that. Older adults are probably the most heterogeneous group of all the age groups. And we don\u2019t always think of it that way, right?<\/p>\n We think of the elderly as this one monolithic entity. I love your use of that word. And nothing could be farther from the truth. So if you pause and just think about this for a second. We think of everyone over 65 as part of this one block, right? We have infants, and then we have toddlers, and then we have pre-K kids, and then we have elementary school. And we are quite sophisticated in the way we compartmentalize people across the age span.<\/p>\n But then we get to age about 65, and they\u2019re all seen as this one block.<\/p>\n So. In the \u201celderly\u201d group, if we consider people in their 90s and people in their 60s, these people are 30 years apart. If you\u2019ve seen and understood one older adult\u2019s use of technology, you\u2019ve really seen and understood one older adult\u2019s use of technology.<\/p>\n Yeah, and I think this overgeneralization does not serve us well. Which is not to say that there is not truth in the data. I think older adults, as a whole, do use less technology, but it varies quite a bit by. age cohort. So, you know, 80-year-olds may not be quite as digitally literate around apps or mobile phones, but 60-year-olds assuredly are very proficient as a group. Now there\u2019s exceptions, obviously, on both ends.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> Well, that makes a lot of sense. Right? You would expect that between a 65-year-old and a 95-year-old, there\u2019s 30 years there\u2014there\u2019s a lot of life and context experience. And I think you\u2019re right that we do paint people in a lot of age brackets, but especially the elderly, with this really broad brush.<\/p>\n But I am curious from what you are seeing\u2014and this will contextualize a little bit of what I want to dig into in this conversation\u2014but do you notice that there is a different effect on older generations in terms of the way that they are using technology than, say, younger generations?<\/p>\n Like, if you were taking the bucket of zero to 10 versus, let\u2019s say, like 75 to 85. Do older generations use\u2014like, is the effective technology different than what you see on younger generations?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> It is, again, with the understanding that one size does not fit all. Older adults as a whole\u2014they\u2019re slower to take up new technology, and they\u2019re much more methodical about it. So I think older adults as a whole are less likely to just experiment or play with tech. They adopt technology when it serves a clear and defined purpose in their lives on the whole. So a great example was what we found during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, right? Among older adults, being tech proficient actually predicted better mental health\u2014and that\u2019s because most of them use technology or newly adopted technology to stay connected. I\u2019ll give you an example from our own work. We, like most health-care systems, sort of had this en-masse migration to telemedicine through Zoom or whatever. And we found that most of our patients were not already using this technology, and so we had to train them on how to use it.<\/p>\n And an interesting thing happened. We found that, of the people who were the majority that figured out how to use telemedicine through phones, et cetera, the ones who did best were the ones that learned Zoom. Not to keep their doctor\u2019s appointments, but it was because their church started doing services virtually, or their family started having gatherings virtually. And then, once they learned it, they were using it way better and way more regularly and effectively than, say, younger populations. So the data are fascinating, because they find that high technology use in teenagers and adolescents is associated with worse mental health and is a predictor of sort of more isolation and loneliness, even depression. Whereas in older adults, engaging in technology seems to be protecting them from isolation and loneliness, and it seems to be enhancing connectivity. Now this finding might evolve over time, but broadly I think tech use and tech engagement is a positive for older adults, when broadly it\u2019s more of a negative for younger adults.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> So that\u2019s really fascinating and I think helpful in grounding what I want to get into here. Because there is a, I guess you\u2019d call it like a meme online. But this is really just a whole bunch of anecdotal evidence that suggests that\u2014I\u2019ll put it this way\u2014I have done a lot of reporting, talking to different people about elderly people and screen-time use. And a lot of what I\u2019ve seen is these anecdotes from younger people. They go home for the holidays; they see that their loved ones who are older are kind of deeply engaged with their phones, with their iPads, with social media. In a way that younger people are recognizing\u2014it\u2019s potentially problematic. Or at least it makes them uncomfortable, right?<\/p>\n They come home; they say, I brought my kids over, you know, grandma and grandpa.<\/em> Or Mom and Dad weren\u2019t paying as much attention<\/em>, right. They were just kind of stuck in their devices<\/em>. This is really worrisome. And I have so many of these anecdotes that have piled up. Or you go on places like Reddit, and you see this \u201cHelp; my mom or dad has this screen-time problem.\u201d And there is this developing feeling. I think you\u2019re starting to see some news articles, and things like that, that say we associate screen-time problems with younger generations. We\u2019re always worried about adolescents. And what they\u2019re seeing\u2014perhaps there is also this problem on the other side of the age spectrum.<\/p>\n I am curious: What is your reaction to all of that anecdotal evidence? Like, are you seeing this too? This idea that, where also technology may be beneficial, but are you seeing a screen-time problem forming generationally?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> So that is so interesting. Because I think the answer is yes. And I think we are seeing increased screen time among older adults as a whole. I think this is definitely true. But there\u2019s a lot of nuance there. Because, I\u2019ll preface it by saying that younger generations\u2014you know, people are more similar to each other in the routines of their lives than not, right? Everyone goes to school. So there is sort of these like activities and routines that extend across the community.<\/p>\n And then, once we get older, you know, elementary-school kids are more like each other than middle-school kids. And middle-school kids are probably a little bit more like each other than high-school kids. And college kids are not quite as like each other. And then, you just continue to separate out. So as you get into late life, people have just had unique life experiences. And while there are similarities, I think there\u2019s also a lot of differences in that life experience. And I think why that is relevant is\u2014we have fewer sorts of ways to determine what constitutes problematic screen use.<\/p>\n So yes, there is increase in screen time; there is increase in screen use. But when that becomes problematic, you really kind of need to get into the weeds with each person to sort of decide if this is a good thing, if it is just what it is, or if it is a problem. To the example of people seeing their older loved ones at the holidays and finding out that they\u2019re spending a lot more time with their phone than they used to. I hear that story in my clinic. I actually see that in my family\u2014like, that\u2019s probably familiar to a lot of people. And the way I think about it is, I mean, yes\u2014you observe it when you meet them during the holidays. The problem is, you\u2019re not there the rest of the time. And what are they doing with their lives the rest of their time? And is this a habit that formed because they just didn\u2019t have all that much going on? And so, now their life is running more through their phone, through their perspective. Is it possible that they have a nice routine? Their phone is a big part of it, for better or worse. And your arrival is actually the disruption. Which is not\u2014<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> That\u2019s so important though, right? Because there is this idea that you are dropping in to getting this window into their lives. Right? And when we talk about some of the issues, especially with people who are much older. Being isolated, being untethered from reality. Real life, right? Like, like civic life, right? If you can\u2019t drive; if you\u2019re in a rural or a remote location. And I think that\u2019s a really helpful observation that this influx of people, or, you know, around the holidays or something is actually like aberrant is, is abnormal.<\/p>\n And the rest of the time these devices could be serving a really smart purpose. Or a really helpful purpose, rather. I wonder, though, when it comes to some of what is being seen\u2014this is a separate part of this. It\u2019s not just that when I hear these anecdotes that are reported that I am, or that they\u2019re coming home and watching their loved ones be deeply embedded in their devices. A lot of the worry, too, is around what they are looking at, right?<\/p>\n This notion that they are scrolling on Facebook, you know, what me and my colleagues are calling \u201creel slop,\u201d right? Like r-e-e-l. Where they\u2019re seeing these AI-generated videos of things that are either, you know, misinforming them, or just strange and kind of detached from reality. And, like, really low quality, right?<\/p>\n Like, these aren\u2019t the mitigations that you are talking about, where it\u2019s allowing someone to play puzzle games that are sort of, you know, keeping their brain elastic. This is, like\u2014kind of tuning everything out and just being washed over with low-quality slop content.<\/p>\n Is that a worry? This idea that the phones are helpful\u2014and the connection is helpful and the tether is helpful\u2014but what they\u2019re seeing is potentially harmful, because it\u2019s really low quality?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> It is a worry. And I think it\u2019s real, and it\u2019s consequential. So, the dark side to all of this screen news has a few different dimensions. I actually think the biggest one is that as older adults are spending more time on the phone, it\u2019s getting easier for scammers to target them. And I think the screen-based scam targeting older adults\u2014I think that is a real problem and a real threat. And with AI, it\u2019s becoming even more sophisticated, because sometimes these scam tools can be really quite hard to distinguish from humans. Especially when the AI is talking to people. So I think that\u2019s a risk. The slop is a risk too. Much has been said and written about misinformation in general, and older adults I think do tend to be a little bit more trusting of a technology that they adopt. I think that that innate skepticism isn\u2019t always there.<\/p>\n And, again, the devil\u2019s always in the details, right? If someone\u2019s just scrolling through a social-media feed where they\u2019re watching a video after the other, that\u2019s a little bit different than two people forwarding content to each other. Or on a chat group, where there\u2019s also communication and correspondence.<\/p>\n I think one of those things is\u2014neither of them is great, but one of those is slightly better than the other. Because one of them involves interaction and communication, and the other one is just much more passive, which is less ideal.<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> Correct.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> You know, participating in the same way, having sort of a panoply of options.<\/p>\n If you talk to younger people about their phones\u2014and by younger people, I mean all the way up to, let\u2019s say, 55, right? They\u2019ll tend to complain about their use. They\u2019ll talk about their doomscrolling, or I wanna get off this<\/em>, or, It\u2019s not helping me live my best life.<\/em> But what are you hearing from older people that you meet with in terms of self-reporting? Are they worried about the time that they\u2019re spending on their devices? Are they okay with it? How do people seem to feel about it?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> In preparation for this conversation, I kind of polled my colleagues. I work in a team with nine other aging and mental-health specialists. And I just told our team that, Have you seen this? Has anyone brought this up?<\/em><\/p>\n And the answer surprised me. That no one\u2019s actually had any of their patients\u2014and we see several hundred people\u2014no one could really acknowledge or remember someone coming to them with problematic screen use as something to address. I think they were there for other things, and you sometimes uncovered a lot of screen use. But unlike, say, you know, substance use or alcohol use, or even things like gambling, we haven\u2019t come across yet the issue of too much screen time as a bona fide problem that requires a mental-health professional. Others may have. So I think I\u2019ll be watching the response to this to see if anyone can share a story. But we are seeing clear reports of more time being spent on the screen.<\/p>\n So, where my head\u2019s at is\u2014we are seeing people spending more time on their phone. But it\u2019s not necessarily being thought of as a problem. And that\u2019s interesting, isn\u2019t it? Because if you\u2019re spending way too much time doing something, you usually know when it\u2019s a problem, versus when it\u2019s not. And I see that as a signal that it\u2019s probably got at least some benefits, or some positives.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> But do you think there\u2019s also a literacy quality there? And what I mean by that is: Something I see from, especially, people in a younger generation than me\u2014Gen Z, Gen Alpha\u2014there is a real understanding, innately, having grown up around this technology, that they know they\u2019re being manipulated at all times.<\/p>\n They know they\u2019re being pushed by these algorithms into this thing. And there\u2019s a frustration there, I think, because of just the understanding of the technology. It being so innate. Do you feel like maybe a little of this\u2014maybe the lack of what you\u2019re hearing on the end of the older people\u2014comes from maybe not having that same media literacy? Understanding of the ways that the technologies work?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> I do think that that\u2019s a part of it. But I also think it\u2019s specific to this moment in time, and that digital literacy just takes time to trickle up the lifespan. So I think we are starting to see this shift. But these things are always going to start at the younger, more hyper-connected, more tech-literate generations, and then trickle up the age span.<\/p>\n There\u2019s also the kinds of tech that older adults use. They tend to trust more mature, more subtle technologies rather than the latest, greatest thing. So, you know, most people are still happier about something like Facebook\u2014which at this point counts as mature technology or at least a mature platform\u2014and they\u2019re less prone to whatever the newest ones are. Snapchat. We are paying attention to ChatGPT and sort of the new generative-AI models. I think a lot of people have their eyes on this, because every now and then we kinda see these leaps in tech adoption. So older adults historically were less prone to using computers. And by computers, I mean the classic desktops.<\/p>\n And then they were also\u2014they used laptops a little bit more. But they were behind when cell phones emerged; they were not as quick to adopt cell phones. They were also slower to adopt smartphones. And then the tablets arrived, and that just seemed to mark this whole en masse onboarding of the technology because\u2014it\u2019s that Goldilocks phenomenon. iPads were just right. I think the screen was larger. The keys were larger. So just easier to type for people with sensory impairment or visual impairment. But also, they were so easy to use. You didn\u2019t need to upload software; you didn\u2019t need to download software. It was all kind of right there. You had to tap it. It was easy. So I think you see these generational leaps around ease and efficiency of use. And a lot of us believe that as these generative AI has gotten more\u2014you know, as we\u2019ve moved from typing to speaking, that\u2019s marking a shift. It\u2019s just so easy now, where you have a device and you tap in, and something is talking to you. And it talks back, and you can have a conversation.<\/p>\n So I think you have these like leaps every few generations of technology, and just simplicity of use. So I think we\u2019re on the threshold of seeing a lot of change, as these voice-based AIs become commonplace.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> Are you seeing a lot of\u2014just anecdotally\u2014a lot of adoption of the voice-based AI?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> We are. We are. And, you know, it\u2019s anxiety-provoking. Because I think it really brings all of the things that we\u2019ve talked about to a head. That\u2014I think it creates huge opportunities, but it also creates massive risks.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> Right. We recently had Kasmir Hill, a New York Times<\/em> reporter, on the podcast, who\u2019s done a lot of reporting around what people are informally calling \u201cAI psychosis.\u201d That\u2019s not a medical definition, obviously, but this idea of problematic behaviors with chatbots. And something that she has noted, in the reporting that we talked a lot about, was this idea of the ways that these chatbots are so engaging, right? It\u2019s not just that they mimic human nature and that they are conversing. Which I think\u2014with someone who may be more isolated in general, or feeling like that\u2014that is extremely attractive as a proposition.<\/p>\n But also this idea that they are prompting you to continue to engage, right? They are also sort of asking questions at the end of it. Wanting you to go further. And the more that people do engage, the higher the likelihood that you start to lose touch with what it is you are.<\/p>\n And this goes to people who are younger, too. This is happening sort of everywhere. The sooner you might lose touch with, Oh, I\u2019m talking to a large language model, not a person, not a thing.<\/em> Are you seeing any problematic examples of those interactions with chatbots? With some of the people that you\u2019re seeing in the clinic?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> So personally, not yet. But it\u2019s a matter of time. Because the thing that I\u2019m nervous about is that bots\u2014it\u2019s that validation function. They rarely contradict during conversation. It\u2019s more, it\u2019s what you said. Like they\u2019re designed to be facilitating, but they\u2019re also designed to be validating. So a bot will not say no. A bot will say yes, but also if it wants to contradict.<\/p>\n And I think there\u2019s a real risk there\u2014that if someone has a question about something, and it\u2019s risky. I\u2019ll make up a ridiculous example. But, say, if an older adult were to ask their daughter, Should I send my bank-account information to this Nigerian prince? <\/em>Their daughter would be, No<\/em>. A bot might say, Well, that\u2019s an interesting question. Here\u2019s what you should know about this\u2014that there is a scam like this, that maybe you should do this. Maybe you should do this. Maybe you should do that<\/em>. And there\u2019s a difference, qualitatively. Because one puts an end to a risky conversation, and the other may not put it quite as \u2026 sorry. One puts an end to the risky conversation, and the other may continue that conversation because it is designed to engage. And I think that is risky. Because that validation function, right? The bot rarely makes you feel bad by telling you you\u2019re wrong. Even when it tells you you are wrong, it offers alternatives or other ways to continue the discussion.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> Well\u2014and I think we, you know, should be clear here\u2014or these purposes, that\u2019s hypothetical. You know, it is possible these chatbots will\u2014or that in some cases when you prompt them\u2014will caution people against sending money to, you know, the theoretical Nigerian prince. But I get what you\u2019re saying. Something you said earlier too, I think is very striking to this phenomenon. You know, I mentioned this, you know, short-form video-slop stuff that has historically been very prevalent on Facebook, and also Instagram. You mentioned that older people tend to adopt these more mature technologies, right? Like a Facebook. And I think what\u2019s interesting as a technology reporter is that some of these younger, newer social platforms\u2014they struggle with all kinds of emergent problems, but they\u2019re also iterating out of them a little bit faster. Right? They\u2019re sort of pushing the boundaries a little bit.<\/p>\n It\u2019s interesting to me that you have these people who are on a platform like Facebook, that isn\u2019t updating in the same way, right? Like it is happy to kind of keep that engagement. To not have those rules against, you know, these types of fake AI-slop images. And it feels, to me, like a danger that is not talked about enough potentially. That by not sort of evolving out of the platforms\u2014like a Gen Z person might do\u2014or being on the newest, latest, greatest thing that there is actually a little bit of this. Yeah, there is a danger of using an older platform that is not evolving in the same ways. Because then they get trapped with the lower-quality content. And I think that\u2019s super fascinating.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> So one of the things that you\u2019ve brought up here\u2014that I think is one of the most salient points for people listening at home who may be dealing with an elderly relative or a loved one who they feel has a problematic relationship with some of their technology\u2014is this idea that it can be really positive. That we should stop, pause, think about what role this is serving in their life.<\/p>\n You are in a clinic with people. You are using this technology in a way that is supposed to have positive interventions. Talk to me about some of the positives you\u2019re seeing here with elders and technology use.<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> So there\u2019s many levels of it, right? The one thing I really try and emphasize is that you don\u2019t have to always be using the most state-of-the-art, high-tech, fresh-off-the-lab tech.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a strong case to be made for just teaching people to use well-established stuff. Properly. A very simple example is: I have people on our team whose job is to teach older adults how to use Uber and Lyft. Why? Because many of them don\u2019t drive. Many of them are isolated. They\u2019re used to calling a car service, or they\u2019re used to calling for the ride. And of course these are benefits, not things they paid for. But, I mean, if I had a dollar for every time we showed someone how easy it is to call a car service that will take you anywhere. It can transform lives, food deliveries, and other examples.<\/p>\n So, you know, is it or is it not \u201ctechnology\u201d to teach someone how to use a widespread app? I would argue it is, because you are enhancing digital literacy, but you\u2019re doing it around specific function. So some of it is just\u2014people\u2019s mood improves, people\u2019s anxiety goes down. If you can simplify everyday functions that may be a challenge for them.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> What about in general? I mean, like, there\u2019s those apps that help. But I think, you know, are you seeing positive effects with the social-media use?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> We can. But it depends on which social-media use. So, a big one is just text messaging, or things like WhatsApp or the Messenger apps. Why? Because if people\u2019s social-media uses anchored around interaction and communication\u2014rather than just the passive consumption of content\u2014that\u2019s a different thing. It\u2019s sort of what I alluded to earlier. That in my family, I have people that\u2014it\u2019s actually quite specific to WhatsApp, that there are people on multiple WhatsApp groups just forwarding what you might consider slop. But it\u2019s one thing to scroll by yourself in your room to watch slop. And it\u2019s another thing to forward slop to each other. And then talk about that slop\u2014whether it be \u201cIs this real?\u201d or \u201cThis is so stupid; what do you think?\u201d So there is almost always value in interaction and communication.<\/p>\n I think in-person\u2019s better \u2026 but in-person is not always an option, right? And so, you know, slop\u2014when consumed in isolation\u2014I think is almost universally a problem. Slop as giving people a common thing to talk about, that might not have too many common things to talk about? Now that\u2019s a little more nuance, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n That\u2019s a little more positive. We know art therapy works. We know music therapy works. But very few people can play an instrument or draw. But if you give them an app that\u2019s equalized artistic talent or musical skill, that\u2019s a positive. So it\u2019s not really about the tech; it\u2019s about how you use it and how you apply it. And I think the art of digital medicine lies in that. The art of digital medicine, the art of digitally based psychiatry, the art of AI use lies in that. I\u2019ll give you an example from an ongoing study, where we have a project where we are comparing a human geriatric-care manager versus an app that is trained on working with caregivers.<\/p>\n And this is all specific to dementia. Which is\u2014it\u2019s a very simple question. We generated, you know, a list of common caregiver questions. And we asked the same question to an AI chatbot and to a human geriatric-care manager. And then we did a third thing. We gave the human care manager access to the bot to see if they could come up with a hybrid answer.<\/p>\n And we compared differences.<\/p>\n But before we even get into what we found, the biggest finding was that it took our human six weeks to answer all the questions and compose their responses. It took the bot 13 minutes. And a lot of us sort of picked up on the fact that\u2014even though we would not really question that you want a human resource, you want someone to help really work through whatever it is that ails you\u2014the truth is, our human is not going to be available for a three-hour conversation at 11:30 in the night. AI is.<\/p>\n And AI is close enough to the \u2026 it\u2019s not perfect, but there is something to be said for efficiency and access. I\u2019m not saying it\u2019s right. I\u2019m saying you can\u2019t discount it.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> All of that is so conflicting to me.<\/p>\n It\u2019s right, because in one sense, I was kind of laughing earlier. Because of this notion of art therapy, music therapy \u2026 and then slop therapy, right? Like, sending it around to others and being connected. And I think that\u2019s important, because it adds a rub to, you know, we look at somebody sort of canonically. There\u2019s this \u2026 I don\u2019t know if you\u2019ve heard of Shrimp Jesus. Have you heard of Shrimp Jesus?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve heard of Shrimp Jesus.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> Okay. It\u2019s an AI-slop representation of this Christlike figure, but it\u2019s a shrimp. And it was one of the early versions of AI slop that was very popular. And it seemed like \u2026 it was not fooling, but sort of bewildering, a lot of elderly Facebook users. Something like that. Anyway, those things are always presented as awful, right? That there\u2019s somebody, they\u2019re like brain rotting instead of generative in any way.<\/p>\n And I think that we have reflexively\u2014especially someone like myself, a technology reporter\u2014have classified something like slop as bad, right? You\u2019re not gaining anything from it. And yet, what you\u2019re asking people to consider is that, just as a meme\u2014as a thing to trade back and forth, a building block of conversation, however silly it may be\u2014or in general, if it\u2019s fostering that kind of tether and that connection, I think that it\u2019s important. And so that\u2019s kind of confounding to think about. Something I wanted to ask you is: I feel like there is this idea that the technology is very helpful to people when it tethers them to reality, right?<\/p>\n Isolation. Loneliness. But I think what we\u2019re also seeing, at the same time, is some of this tech, some of what they\u2019re consuming is actually distancing them from reality. It\u2019s blurring the lines of what is real. So you have this thing, it feels like two things are happening at once, right? Almost at the exact same time. Do you agree with that?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> I do. I do. And I think that conflict that you\u2019re feeling, that confusion. That asking of, Well, which is it? Is it good or is it bad? <\/em><\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> I know.<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> That\u2019s actually the appropriate response, because nobody knows. But I think there are some guardrails to this, because the real answer is not, \u201cNobody knows.\u201d But the real answer is, \u201cIt depends.\u201d It depends on the person; it depends on the situation; it depends on the circumstance. I get asked all the time\u2014you know, we now have therapy chatbots. And I get asked all the time\u2014am I worried that these things are going to take away human jobs? And I don\u2019t think so. In fact, I think it\u2019s really sharpening the human effect. And I think it\u2019s very close to what you said. That on the one hand, people value technology that tethers them to reality. But there\u2019s also an untethering. And that\u2019s exactly right, isn\u2019t it? I think that the human function there is to then find the tethering, and to prevent that disconnection and that confusion.<\/p>\n And sometimes it\u2019s as simple as acknowledging the confusion to begin with. We react poorly to ambiguity. I think there is this preference for clarity, and sometimes all we have to do is help people hold their ambiguity. But then do it while giving them some tools around how to then remain connected.<\/p>\n So: brain rot, slop. I think no one would argue \u2026 that\u2019s probably not a good thing. But if brain-rot slop is giving you something to talk to people, preferably in the same room and face to face, and if you\u2019re older? If it\u2019s giving you something to laugh at, or something to at least make sure that everyone else is just as puzzled about it as you are? And then maybe it gives you an excuse to call up your grandchild and say, Well, what the hell is this thing? It makes no sense<\/em>. Then, something positive has sprouted from that slop.<\/p>\n And, I think in many ways, I think there is a certain collective responsibility not to be absorbed by all of this\u2014but to absorb it instead and assimilate AI as a piece that can promote. And this is all very Pollyanna. I\u2019m not saying this is easy. I\u2019m not saying this is how it\u2019s going to go. This is messy, complicated stuff. But there is a reality where this can all be sort of leveraged into a collective positive.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> Yeah, my concern having covered this for a long time with the social platforms is that I think you\u2019re right. And I would just want to say that I don\u2019t want to paint with too broad a brush on this, and there could be these positive externalities from even the lowest-quality type of content. I think that\u2019s something we all need to keep in mind. Where I worry\u2014where I break a little bit from you is that these companies are generally very poor stewards of the regulations and the rules and the looking out for. And they do optimize for this engagement.<\/p>\n And if you have a segment of the population\u2014be it 11-year-olds, or be it 84-year-olds who are showing signs of deeper and deeper engagement with a certain type of thing\u2014the chances are it\u2019s going to be fed to them at higher and higher rates. Right? And, that, to me is the concern. And that\u2019s not on you, or that\u2019s not on the people who are using this technology. That is, very simply, on people who are in charge of building and designing these platforms not serving their users properly. And that\u2019s distinct from any kind of user behavior.<\/p>\n What I wanted to sort of end on here is: This episode\u2019s going to come out during the holiday season. People are going to be at home. People are probably going to be experiencing this, we\u2019ll call it a \u201cphenomenon,\u201d but just this experience of maybe seeing an older loved one immersed in a device. Maybe feeling a sense of concern. How do you suggest that people breach those conversations? And what should they be saying to someone if they do feel this way?<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> Such a great question. I would say first\u2014if you feel distress, see if you can hold it within you, and resist the temptation to jump to a conclusion about it. So don\u2019t go, You\u2019re spending too much time on the phone. <\/em>Instead, perhaps ask, What are you watching on your phone?<\/em><\/p>\n What apps are you into? This is what I do with my phone.<\/em> You could use their phone use as a conversation starter, as a way to meet them where they are, as a way to perhaps enter their world rather than expecting them to jump straight into your world. And, it can just be the basis of strengthening connection rather than breaking it.<\/p>\n But who among us responds well to being told whatever it is we are enjoying is wrong? Like, no one enjoys that. So, don\u2019t do that if it bothers you. Fair game. But keep an open mind, and inquire and learn and assess what\u2019s going on\u2014rather than declaring it good or bad.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> I think it\u2019s so smart that if we are talking about a behavior that seems to be isolating somebody, or seems to be drawing a human disconnect, that the appropriate way to respond to it is to connect with them, right? Not to disengage\u2014or shame them in some way that may draw them further into their device, or further away from the loved ones in their life who they feel like they\u2019re judging.<\/p>\n I think there\u2019s something rather lovely about using this as an opportunity to foster the kind of connection that they may not be feeling. And that may be drawing them into that device.<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> Yeah. It could be a reason to bond, rather than a reason to separate. Because we all bond over things we share in common. For better or worse, too much phone use is something we all share in common these days. Might as well use it.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> I think that\u2019s a great place to end it. Dr. Vahia, thank you so much for coming on Galaxy Brain<\/em>.<\/p>\n Vahia:<\/strong> Such a pleasure. Thank you for having me, Charlie, and for focusing on this. It matters.<\/p>\n Warzel:<\/strong> That\u2019s it for us here. Thank you again to my guest, Dr. Vahia. If you liked what you saw here, new episodes of Galaxy Brain<\/em> drop every Friday, and you can subscribe in The<\/em> Atlantic<\/em>\u2019s YouTube page, or on Apple or Spotify, or wherever it is you get your podcasts. And if you enjoyed this, remember, you can support our work and the work of all the journalists at The Atlantic<\/em> by subscribing to the publication at TheAtlantic.com\/Listener.<\/p>\n That\u2019s TheAtlantic.com\/Listener. Thanks so much, and I\u2019ll see you on the internet.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Subscribe here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube Are your parents addicted to their phone? In this episode of Galaxy Brain, Charlie Warzel explores how technology is affecting an older generation of adults. Instead of a phone-based childhood, Warzel suggests, we may be witnessing the emergence of a phone-based retirement\u2014one shaped by isolation, algorithmic feeds,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":39236,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[21316,1560,286],"class_list":{"0":"post-39235","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-social-issues","8":"tag-grownups","9":"tag-screen","10":"tag-time"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39235","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=39235"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39235\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/39236"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=39235"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=39235"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=39235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}