A dead giveaway is the differentiation between "real" (us, conventional, safe) and "artificial" (them, unconventional, scary). Like how the artifice of newfangled science/witchcraft with its instruments and math undermines people's ability to form a real connection with God or nature. And how math destroys the "human spirit" that allows this connection of faith. Or maybe how medicine from a chemistry lab is somehow worse than pills "made of natural ingredients" (even if the chemistry is the same). Lets ban research ("It's God's will that things are just so" is a perfect explanation for why the sun shines and any other question one might have) or at least not teach the kids that Santa isn't real. Like I said, I can do this all day
(I don't think I'm making a strawman argument here. Rather, I'm pointing out a universal pattern describing how humans experience and resist change.)
I'm obviously biased towards not putting much value in so-called "real human connections", which I confidently presume has mostly to do with touchy-feely stuff like facial expressions and emoting during conversations about "how you're doing", "what you've been up to" and reminiscing about experiences involving other humans, etc. and basically just caring about the everyday lives of "people" like their "food, stories, and culture".
(To understand how I feel about "real human connection", consider how the majority of people feel about "reading a book". In both cases the want as well as the need is very low. Do I lament that most people are functionally aliterate? Yes. Do I feel threatened by it? Only to the extent that enough authors would stop writing books. Did I worry when people turned from blogging to podcasting? A little, but obviously podcasting hasn't completely taken over the world or diminished the written world of ideas. There are still writers I can read.)
Of course, people pursuing "real human connections" are also subject to a form of control in the form of conventions and the pursuit of being liked by others or even popular, perhaps rising to the position of "queen bee". Those who play that game probably think it's the realest and most "natural" way of being w/o realizing just what a late-20th century exception this pursuit of connection actually is. Controlling others comes natural to them. Those who aren't into it might think think it "fake" and manipulative when someone else "change their face" depending on who they're talking to or what they're trying to get from them. They're also more aware of how stifling social conformity/fitting in/ingratiation/being pleasant is to their sense of freedom.
People who are great at "real human connections" tend to flounder and flail when they're subjected to social media formats like facebook. The social media format just doesn't work as well for establishing those "real human connections" that e.g. allows backroom/sidebar manipulation of the social fabric or relying on a common history.
Conversely, social media behavior similarly doesn't work very well when applied to "the real world" above. The greatest rift I see here is that online people often adopt a code of "freedom from consequences". A terminally online person might expect that their usual practice of fixing their screw-ups by just deleting the offending statement, hitting the reset button on their account, or enjoying a certain agree of anonymity also works with "real human connections". They're much surprised when they experience the real-world equivalent of blocking or ghosting (real world social sanctions).
On the other hand, social media has allowed human connections (real or artificial) that are unlike anything the previous "real human connection"-system was capable of. Just on this forum we have connected people from multiple countries and walks of life who would otherwise never connect. Forumites often say that other forumites understand them better than "the real connections" they have in "the real world"---up to and including spouses. However, connecting to other people here does require the ability to write and spout high-brow thoughts. This non-explicit form of control is a big reason why many lurk or are reluctant to weigh in. Conversely, getting overly used to communicating deep asynchronous concepts in writing definitely does take away from the ability to perform shallow synchronous small talk. I'm almost completely devoid of that skill. Yet I have no desire to learn. I have tried more than once and ultimately rejected it. If forced to attend a social gathering of "real humans", I bring a book if I can.
It is for these reasons I don't expect or fear that sexbots will take over the world. Old valueMemes don't get REplaced. They get DISplaced and thus live on except now there's yet another alternative. Science didn't replace faith. It displaced it. Writing didn't replace oral tradition. It displaced it. And so on. None of these "changed everything", they only "changed some things". They just added to what already was. People still pick up the phone instead of sending an email. People still believe in God. And so on.
I do have some sympathy with the perspective though. Approximately half my conversations with people over 70 are about "why everything now requires a computer when people once used to be able to do XYZ without a computer?" The other half is about "how they can't relate to the youngest generations because it's all computer-this and computer-that". Usually they blame it on their age and "how it comes much easier to young people". My response is that with their experience and knowledge they would be able to learn much faster than a 10yo. The difference is rather that they're calcified in their opinions and don't even care to learn when "it's easier just to ask a younger person for help".
I've been aware of the changes in the dating world for about 15 years now albeit exclusively through the writings of forumites here. It's funny that "online dating" used to be seen as highly sketchy approach compared to the standard approach of hitting up random drunk strangers in bars and clubs. Now it's the opposite. Even online dating has changed from the point where eaoborate profiles and writing ability gave one an advantage to these days where profile pictures and 140 characters of "tiktok speech" decides whether someone swipes left or right.
Combining these two, I do acknowledge the BIG problem of getting stuck/left behind the curve. Personally I wouldn't know how to even begin to approach dating in 2025 insofar I had to do it now. I do know that my old strategies/perspective/expectations would be unlikely to work. What was "real" to me is now just "old" to most others as well as the dating-environment in general.
Probably the best strategy is to acknowledge that the situation really is fluid/evolving rather than insist that one's favorite/comfortable approach is somehow more real than any other approach. That's dinosaur mentality. I mean I'm highly tempted to criticize the tinder approach, but to the tinder-people swiping to set up quick cups of coffee is likely more "real" than exchanging really long emails to see if there was any introspective depth to the person before eventually meeting. However, that world is likely gone by now.
Ultimately, I don't think sexbots (which I suspect in their physical form are ways away---unlike their virtual forms which are probably right around the corner) is much more of a game-changer in terms of how people approach relationships than e.g. no-fault divorce or women making <gasp> their own money. Humans will have to adapt a little but overall this innovation will only impact a small fraction (the hypersexed or those who primarily see relations through the lens of sex --- primarily the adolescent male demographic) and so most won't care.
In short, I think tying oneself to the mast [to resist the call of the sirens] only ensures that one drowns when the ship eventually goes down.