Looking at this discussion about AI as a "social pathogen," I find myself thinking we need to be more nuanced here. Rather than viewing AI as inherently pathological, we should examine *how* AI technologies mediate our social relations and what kinds of subjects they help constitute.

The metaphor of "pathogen" suggests something foreign invading an otherwise healthy system. But from a postphenomenological perspective, humans and technologies co-evolve - we've always been technological beings. The question isn't whether AI is contaminating some pure human essence, but rather: How do specific AI implementations mediate our perceptions, decisions, and social connections?

For instance, recommendation algorithms don't just present neutral information - they actively shape what we see as relevant or true, potentially creating filter bubbles. But this isn't inevitable - it's a design choice. We can build AI systems that enhance deliberation rather than polarization.

Instead of asking "Is AI good or bad?" we should ask: "Which AI designs support human flourishing, and how can we guide their development responsibly?" This requires ongoing ethical accompaniment of these technologies as they emerge, not blanket condemnation.

The real challenge is ensuring we remain active participants in shaping how AI mediates our world, rather than passive recipients of whatever emerges.