The scenarios you have outlined require a lifestyle in which people no longer come together physically.

Human-machine interaction is advocated by those who classify humans as flawed, slow, less intelligent, confirming a worldview that is pessimistic about their own species.

The fact that people treat other people prejudicially and therefore adversely (antipathy) or preferentially on the basis of personal sympathy is interpreted as weakness/wrongness, as something that should not be so. People should "not be like that". One should be unprejudiced and equal to all.

But since it is not and will not be so, because it is part of human nature to like some and not to like others, and instead of accepting this fact, because things ultimately balance out in this and the individual can take his chances and failures into his own hands in order to find his place in the social structure, one commits the error here of wanting to regulate such things by means of artificial intelligence. This creates something like a nanny-AI.

I interpret this as a desire for omnipotence, for an omniscient being that, because "God is dead", seeks to replace this God. The intelligence of us humans is basically elusive and hardly comprehensible and a miracle of life. It cannot be compared with machine intelligence and is therefore different. Neither better nor worse, but different. People neglect this fact and therefore feel either threatened or thrilled by AI.

There is no substitute for the human-to-human encounter. If one tries nevertheless, it happens that people end up in too much isolation and where there is no one else to absorb this, the human being gives himself up. One then becomes ill both physically and mentally. This can lead to falling into a state of torpor.

A few months ago I was an assessor in a court case. It is the human arguments, the relationships that develop during such a trial, the impressions one receives from each other that ultimately bring about a judgement on the part of the judge - he got influenced by those humans present in the room, even us bystanders. There is no objective judge, just as there are no objective defendants or assessors. They are all in a momentary living relationship with each other and they interact with each other. The most "intelligent" person in the room is the one who has an interest in getting the best and most beneficial outcome for all involved.

Such and other experiences are a basic need of us humans. If we ignore them and limit our gatherings to the absolute minimum, we are cutting ourselves down too much.

... Maybe, humanity must go to the very end of such isolation in order to realize that it's the wrong path.

When nothing is left to celebrate, neither birthdays nor funerals and other holy days, nothing at all to have a reason to gather, people will die as a consequence from this isolation.

Though there will be others who hold on to come together, to be in the presence of each other physically and create art and music within the group.

Many factors cannot be predicted and while it seems to be the case that the human being is already and will further on be replaced by machines, I think that the will to live, to gather, to create is still strong.

Is that an artistic space? Phew...

Phew, indeed. I hope for the best and not the worst, though. As always, we'll see.