Been there, done that, not going again.

AI capable of those things did indeed once exist, but (like so many technologies we have had on earth) nobody developing them had much motive to be interested in the resulting problems. Same as with tobacco, asbestos, fossil fuel energy, and a thousand other things that humans have innovated only to later realise their consequences, and only when forced to.

In present day society we're already discussing the impact of social websites such as Facebook and Twitter on profound areas of our social structure, such as truth/falsehood control of narrative, focus on bad news and things that divide not heal society, stalking and harmful uses of the info, and so on. None of those were major public discourse concerns in advance, only after the fact.

So its not implausible that your societies' experience is that AI for social purposes actually can't be done without much social harm. It isn't a matter of more AI,or better systems. Something about that use and maybe about how they as a species think and social, means it does harm and after much effort the broad conclusion is, "you just can't fix it".

Your societies have been there, done that. Numerous times with numerous technologies. They have either tried AI that way before, in history, or seen other societies try it, or have learned from the past and try to outlaw technology angles that have a high risk of dysfunctional outcomes.

And the uses of AI in your question, do have such outcomes. We don't need to identify them for story purposes, but it wouldn't be hard to handwave many very real sounding consequences they've seen or anticipated. Therefore they just don't.

It would be like asking a modern earth society to re adopt slavery, or go back to clay tablets and cuneiform for writing. No sane person in all those societies would want to. So they don't.

Been there, done that, not going again.

AI capable of those things did indeed once exist, but (like so many technologies we have had on earth) nobody developing them had much motive to be interested in the resulting problems. Same as with tobacco, asbestos, fossil fuel energy, and a thousand other things that humans have innovated only to later realise their consequences, and only when forced to.

In present day society we're already discussing the impact of social websites such as Facebook and Twitter on profound areas of our social structure, such as truth/falsehood control of narrative, focus on bad news and things that divide not heal society, stalking and harmful uses of the info, and so on. None of those were major public discourse concerns in advance, only after the fact.

Other issues in our own use, might be loss of knowledge (why learn if you can google), assumption data is known, over reliance.

So its not implausible that your societies' experience is that AI for social purposes actually can't be done without much social harm. It isn't a matter of more AI,or better systems. Something about that use and maybe about how they as a species think and social, means it does harm and after much effort the broad conclusion is, "you just can't fix it".

Your societies have been there, done that. Numerous times with numerous technologies. They have either tried AI that way before, in history, or seen other societies try it, or have learned from the past and try to outlaw technology angles that have a high risk of dysfunctional outcomes.

And the uses of AI in your question, do have such outcomes. We don't need to identify them for story purposes, but it wouldn't be hard to handwave many very real sounding consequences they've seen or anticipated. Therefore they just don't.

It would be like asking a modern earth society to re adopt slavery, or go back to clay tablets and cuneiform for writing. 

No sane person in all those societies would want to go back to (or start using) a system thats going to harm them longer term. So they don't.