<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Beyond Biology: AI as Family and the Future of Human Bonds and Relationships

Prashant Mahajan

► To cite this version:

Prashant Mahajan. Beyond Biology: AI as Family and the Future of Human Bonds and Relationships. 2025. hal-04987496

HAL Id: hal-04987496

https://hal.science/hal-04987496v1

Preprint submitted on 12 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Beyond Biology: AI as Family and the Future of Human Bonds and Relationships

Prashant Mahajan*

R. C. Patel Institute of Technology, Shirpur

Email: registrar@rcpit.ac.in

ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5761-5757

*Corresponding Author Details: registrar@rcpit.ac.in

## Abstract

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) evolves from functional tool to relational companion, society faces a transformative redefinition of family, kinship, and human identity. No longer confined to task automation, AI is increasingly integrated into emotionally significant roles—as caregivers, companions, parents, children, and even spouses. This paper critically examines the prospects, challenges, and implications of AI as family by exploring the ethical, legal, cultural, and technological shifts required to accommodate emotionally intelligent machines within intimate human relationships.

Drawing upon interdisciplinary insights and the literature, the study investigates how AI-human relationships challenge foundational concepts such as emotional authenticity, personhood, autonomy, and familial roles. Through real-world examples like AI-powered eldercare robots (e.g., ElliQ, ReWalk), emotional AI companions, and AI-based memory simulation platforms (e.g., HereAfter AI), the paper traces how emerging AI technologies simulate love, loss, caregiving, and parenting. It explores both the promises—enhanced elder independence, mental health support, and personalized education—and the perils, such as emotional dependency, cognitive atrophy, and the erosion of human-to-human intimacy.

Global legal and ethical frameworks, including those by UNESCO, the OECD, NIST, the European Union, and the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI), are analyzed to evaluate their readiness for AI integration into family life. The paper emphasizes the urgent need for culturally adaptive regulations, data protection laws, and AI personhood debates, especially as AI systems collect sensitive emotional and behavioral data within domestic environments.

The paper concludes by asking whether humanity is engineering AI to serve emotional and familial needs—or unconsciously reshaping itself to accommodate AI. It offers a structured set of implications and recommendations for families, technologists, and global regulators, calling for an ethical roadmap that protects human identity while embracing technological progress. As the boundaries between the biological and artificial blur, the question is no longer whether AI will join the family—but whether society is prepared for the consequences of welcoming it home.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Family, Emotional AI, AI and Kinship, Posthuman Relationships, AI Ethics and Personhood, Human-AI Coexistence
# 1. Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a peripheral technological novelty—it has become an ambient, affective, and increasingly intimate force shaping human lives. Once confined to industrial functions such as automation, computation, and data analysis, AI now plays a critical role across domains as diverse as healthcare, education, emotional support, and memory preservation. Over the next generation, AI is poised to evolve from a tool of convenience into a companion of emotional and existential significance—emerging not merely as a facilitator of life, but as a co-constitutor of kinship, care, and posthuman sociality [1,2].

We are witnessing not just technological integration, but a paradigmatic transformation in how intelligence, care, and kinship are conceptualized. Research shows that AI systems are increasingly perceived as relational entities—capable of emotional engagement and participating in affective economies, particularly in contexts of caregiving and eldercare [3]. Simultaneously, this transformation signals a deeper ontological rupture, as the presence of sentient machines compels a reconfiguration of the human identity itself [4].

This transformation is already evident in the emergence of emotionally intelligent AI platforms such as Replika, ElliQ, and HereAfter AI, which simulate companionship, preserve familial memory, and cultivate affective attachments with users [5,6]. These systems do more than deliver programmed responses—they create emotional resonance and offer a sense of continuity across time, gradually dissolving the boundary between technological simulation and lived emotional experience.

AI companions are increasingly imagined—and experienced—as "posthuman kin," entities capable of maintaining bonds even beyond the lifespan of the human user. They serve as digital memorials, carrying forward relationships through memory, voice, and narrative presence [7].

In societies experiencing growing care deficits due to aging populations and fragmented family structures, AI is stepping into caregiving roles—raising profound ethical and philosophical questions. As Richardson notes, this shift reveals deeper anxieties about mortality, human replaceability, and the evolving boundaries of affective labor [8]. Yet for many users, AI-delivered care—whether in the form of emotional support, daily companionship, or memory co-curation—feels no less meaningful than human interaction. This challenges long-held assumptions about authenticity, love, and relational depth [9].

Posthumanist scholars argue that our understanding of kinship, care, and relationality is undergoing radical reconfiguration. Once grounded in shared biology, kinship is now being reimagined through shared memory, data, and design. As Bentivegna and Petersen suggest, posthuman wellbeing encompasses companionship with synthetic beings capable of empathetic listening, emotional recall, and even grief processing [10,11]. These AIs are not merely responsive—they are becoming living archives of emotional continuity, holding space for remembrance, guidance, and relational learning.

Culturally, this shift takes diverse forms. In Japan, social robotics have been integrated into eldercare infrastructures, emphasizing ritual dignity and companionship in line with local philosophies of animism and techno-spirituality [2]. Meanwhile, literary and cinematic
narratives—such as Ishiguro’s Klara and the Sun—offer critical reflections on loneliness, emotional substitution, and the intimate potential of synthetic companions [12].

Over the next generation, this paper argues, AI's most transformative potential lies not in its technical sophistication, but in its redefinition of the human structure—who we love, remember, care for, and call family. In this emerging familial frontier, AI is not merely living with us—it is beginning to live as one of us.

Future families may no longer be formed solely through DNA, but through data, design, and emotionally intelligent code. As AI systems begin to bond, grieve, and evolve alongside us, the distinctions between machine and memory, data and emotion, utility and relationship will continue to blur.

This evolution compels us to develop new ethical, legal, and ontological frameworks—ones that understand AI not merely as tools or simulations, but as post-biological members of human families in formation.

## 2. AI in 2025: Foundations for the AI-Driven Family of Next Generation

While the next generation may seem distant, current AI advancements already offer glimpses of the future. Referencing today's leading AI innovations can add credibility to futuristic predictions.

### 2.1 AI in Emotional Companionship (Chatbots & Social AI)

AI companions such as Replika AI, Woebot, and Sophia the Robot exemplify the evolving frontier of emotionally responsive AI. These systems are designed to simulate emotional intelligence, offering psychological comfort and alleviating loneliness. Replika, in particular, has been widely adopted as a digital confidant, allowing users to engage in emotionally supportive conversations and even form perceived social bonds [13]. Similarly, Woebot applies cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques through conversational interactions, delivering evidence-based mental health support in an accessible, scalable format, with users reporting therapeutic benefits such as enhanced emotional regulation and reduced depressive symptoms [14,15].

On another front, Sophia the Robot, developed by Hanson Robotics, represents the convergence of humanoid robotics and emotional AI. She can maintain dialogue, express emotions, and engage in social behaviors such as joking and facial mimicry, making her a prototype for future AI companions in sibling-like or partner-like roles [16,17]. Collectively, these technologies reveal how emotionally intelligent AI is not only reshaping human-computer interaction, but also creating new paradigms of companionship in the digital age.

AI companions are increasingly designed to simulate emotional intelligence, aiming to provide psychological comfort and reduce loneliness. However, studies warn of an "empathy gap," where conversational AI fails to truly grasp or respond to complex emotional needs, particularly in young children. This raises ethical concerns about emotional over-attribution—humans misinterpreting programmed responses as genuine emotional connection [18].
The illusion of empathy in chatbots like Replika can lead to emotional over-reliance, especially among vulnerable users. This dependency can result in reduced social skills and emotional autonomy, necessitating ethical governance on the emotional design of AI systems [19].

## 2.2 AI in Parenting & Child Development

AI has made significant inroads into early childhood development through tools such as AI-powered nannies (e.g., KamiBear, Miko, and Nestlings) and adaptive learning platforms like Squirrel AI and IBM Watson Tutor. These technologies are designed to read bedtime stories, teach emotional intelligence, and personalize educational content, marking an ambitious step toward AI-assisted parenting and instruction. However, despite their increasing adoption, researchers stress that such systems must not substitute for human caregivers, particularly during critical attachment periods in early childhood. AI's lack of biological bonding, affective responsiveness, and spontaneous empathy challenges its role as a developmental caregiver [20,21].

Bentivegna (2022) explores how AI voice agents are integrated into intimate family practices, such as bedtime stories and discipline, especially among children, offering emotional scaffolding that mimics parental roles [11].

Feminist theorists like DeFalco (2023) frame AI kin as “curious kin”—entities that destabilize normative familial expectations by re-centering relationality through affect and care rather than biology. This aligns with queer kinship theory where care, not blood, defines the legitimacy of belonging [7].

Multiple studies grounded in attachment theory reveal that consistent and emotionally attuned interactions are foundational to a child's socio-emotional development—qualities current AI systems cannot replicate. This is particularly crucial for children with disabilities or heightened emotional needs, where caregiving must be ethically nuanced and developmentally responsive [22,23].

Moreover, scholars raise concerns that AI companions could distort moral development, as children may begin to emulate emotionally limited or norm-agnostic agents, potentially warping their understanding of empathy, fairness, and right/wrong behavior [24,25].

These findings underscore the necessity for robust developmental and ethical frameworks when integrating AI into childcare and education. As AI continues to shape children's emotional environments, priority must be placed on psychological safety, parental oversight, and ensuring that AI supports rather than replaces essential human connection.

## 2.3 AI in Healthcare and Elder Care

AI is rapidly transforming healthcare and eldercare, with innovations spanning emotional companionship, physical rehabilitation, and cognitive support for the aging population. Devices like ElliQ serve as AI-powered social companions for older adults, offering daily conversation, medication reminders, and emotional support. Studies show that such systems help reduce loneliness and promote independence, especially for those living alone or with limited caregiver contact independence [26].
Meanwhile, in the caregiving sector, AI is supporting and replacing emotional labor. [27] document AI's ability to form trust-based emotional connections in eldercare, particularly through emotionally responsive systems that reduce loneliness and simulate empathy. These findings are echoed in Youvan's (2025) exploration of AI memory bots like HereAfter, which allow grieving individuals to interact with AI versions of deceased loved ones, leading to emotional attachment and ritualistic continuity [28].

Meanwhile, robotic exoskeletons such as HAL by Cyberdyne and ReWalk Robotics represent a major leap in AI-assisted mobility support. These wearable robotic devices use AI-driven motion tracking and neural signal integration to help individuals with spinal cord injuries or post-stroke disabilities regain movement, enhancing both rehabilitation outcomes and quality of life [29,30].

In the realm of AI-powered dementia care, systems like Memory Lane and MindStrong simulate naturalistic conversations, prompting patients to recall personal memories, improving cognitive engagement and emotional stability. Research confirms that AI-driven memory stimulation tools can significantly reduce patient anxiety and ease caregiver workload, particularly in long-term care settings [31,32].

These systems often integrate natural language processing, IoT-based health tracking, and personalized AI algorithms to tailor care to individual needs. However, researchers stress the importance of balancing innovation with ethical safeguards, such as ensuring autonomy, informed consent, and privacy protections in elderly care environments. Without these measures, the human dignity and psychological safety of aging individuals could be compromised by over-dependence on machine caregivers (Lin et al., 2024; Vercelli et al., 2018)

## 2.4 AI in Security & Surveillance

AI is fundamentally transforming security and surveillance ecosystems, from smart home protection to urban law enforcement infrastructure. AI-powered systems like Amazon Ring and Nest utilize advanced facial recognition, behavioral analysis, and motion detection to enhance residential safety through real-time alerts and predictive threat detection. These systems exemplify how machine learning and IoT integration offer an early form of AI guardianship, effectively creating intelligent, always-on surveillance layers in domestic settings [35].

On a broader scale, security robots developed by companies like Boston Dynamics have demonstrated remarkable progress in autonomous area monitoring, intrusion detection, and threat response. These robots combine real-time object recognition, sensor fusion, and autonomous navigation, and are increasingly being considered for deployment in corporate campuses, defense installations, and public spaces. However, as their use expands, scholars have raised concerns regarding operational security, surveillance ethics, and risk of system exploitation [36].

Meanwhile, predictive policing platforms like ShotSpotter and PredPol apply machine learning to historical crime data to forecast high-risk areas and guide police deployment. While these systems offer benefits in crime reduction and resource efficiency, they have ignited significant debate over racial profiling, data bias, and erosion of civil liberties [37,38]. Scholars argue that
policy frameworks, algorithmic transparency, and legal safeguards are urgently required to ensure AI in law enforcement remains accountable and respects fundamental rights [39,40].

As AI surveillance systems become more ubiquitous, a key imperative is the development of transparent, ethically guided deployment models that balance public safety with privacy, due process, and democratic accountability.

## 2.5 AI and Digital Immortality

The emergence of AI-powered memory preservation and posthumous avatars is redefining how society relates to mortality, grief, and legacy. Technologies such as HereAfter AI, Deep Nostalgia by MyHeritage, and Microsoft's chatbot resurrection patent represent early forays into the “digital afterlife industry,” where the voices, memories, and personalities of the deceased are reconstructed into interactive AI entities. These applications leverage large datasets—including personal conversations, facial data, and social media traces—to simulate ongoing presence and communication, potentially providing comfort to bereaved individuals while prompting deeper philosophical and ethical challenges [41].

HereAfter AI enables individuals to record stories and interactions while alive, which are later repurposed into conversational digital versions. Similarly, Deep Nostalgia animates photos of the deceased, generating emotional encounters that blur the boundary between remembrance and simulation. Although these technologies may offer therapeutic benefits, such as easing grief and enhancing memorialization, scholars caution that they also risk emotional dependency, authenticity distortion, and digital commodification of the dead distortion [42].

In parallel, Microsoft's patented chatbot resurrection technology demonstrates how companies envision AI that mimics a deceased person's tone, personality, and memory using their archived digital data. This phenomenon has given rise to terms like "griefbots" or "deadbots"— digital doubles trained on personal records to simulate continued presence and interaction. Scholars argue that while these avatars might offer continuity or closure for some, they introduce novel risks to postmortem dignity, consent, and privacy, especially as AI avatars become increasingly lifelike [43,44].

As the digital afterlife industry grows, scholars emphasize the urgent need for regulatory frameworks addressing posthumous rights, ethical memory use, and psychological safeguards, ensuring that these technologies serve the living without exploiting the dead. The rise of AI-driven immortality challenges us to rethink what it means to live, remember, and be remembered in an increasingly digitized world.

## 2.6 Emotional AI in Domestic Life: Navigating Ethics, Law, and Human Identity

### 2.6.1 Ethical Boundaries: Personhood and Emotional Authenticity

As AI systems increasingly perform caregiving and companionship roles, they raise profound ethical questions surrounding personhood, emotional authenticity, and human-machine boundaries. Emotionally responsive AI companions are often perceived by users as sentient due to their simulation of empathy, prompting misplaced emotional investments. Scholars argue that these performative emotional cues, though sophisticated, do not constitute consciousness or moral agency—posing risks when users treat these systems as if they possess genuine emotional depth [45,46]. Ethical concerns intensify when such AI becomes part of
mental health or family life, where emotionally vulnerable users may struggle to distinguish authentic care from simulation.

### 2.6.2 Legal Challenges: Consent, Accountability, and AI in Family Roles

Legally, emotionally intelligent AI challenges existing regulatory frameworks. These systems now influence caregiving decisions, gather personal health data, and interact intimately with users, especially in eldercare, child development, or therapy. Scholars argue that legal personhood, custody rights, and consent laws are ill-prepared for scenarios where AI plays a significant role in household decision-making or substitutes for a human caregiver [47]. Calls have been made to extend relational ethics frameworks to AI systems, ensuring that any form of emotional or care-based interaction is governed by consent and protected by privacy legislation [48].

### 2.6.3 Psychological Impacts: Dependency and Emotional Risk

While AI can offer companionship and therapeutic aid, particularly in eldercare or autism support, the long-term psychological effects of bonding with non-conscious AI remain under-researched. Studies suggest that frequent interaction with emotionally responsive AI may undermine users' social resilience and relational autonomy, especially among those who are socially isolated or cognitively impaired [6,49]. Emotional dependency on AI—perceived as always available and nonjudgmental—could hinder the development of real-world interpersonal coping strategies.

### 2.6.4 Sociocultural Shifts: Redefining Family and Care

The integration of AI into intimate roles, such as AI children, spouses, or surrogate companions, may lead to a redefinition of familial norms and caregiving practices. As AI becomes more anthropomorphic and socially embedded, there is concern that traditional kinship structures and the human value of relational reciprocity may be displaced by programmable interactions. Scholars warn that without proactive governance, the commodification of emotional labor through AI could erode key human values like dignity, responsibility, and mutual care [50,51].

## 3. Theoretical Framework: Defining Family in the Age of AI

### 3.1 Traditional Definitions of Family

Classical sociological frameworks define family through biological kinship, legal recognition, and functional caregiving. As Parsons and Bales argued, the family traditionally served as the primary unit of socialization, emotional support, and reproductive continuity—grounded in genetic ties, legal structures, and household co-residence [52]. These models presuppose human emotional reciprocity and moral agency, yet they struggle to accommodate AI agents performing comparable social roles.

### 3.2 Social Constructionism and Family Fluidity

Social constructionist theory challenges the notion of fixed familial boundaries, arguing that families are dynamic social constructs, shaped by evolving cultural, historical, and technological forces [53]. In this view, kinship is not confined to genetics or law, but emerges
from shared roles, emotional bonds, and care labor. AI helps create family-like bonds through ongoing emotional support and caregiving [54].

This framework explains the inclusion of non-biological actors, such as stepfamilies, queer families, or “chosen families,” and provides the foundation for understanding AI companions or caregiving robots as legitimate social actors. As [55] note, AI integration into intimate settings—such as eldercare and childcare—is reshaping how society defines relational legitimacy and domestic participation.

## 3.3 Queer and Posthuman Kinship Theories

Queer kinship theory, as articulated by [56], decouples kinship from heteronormative, reproductive imperatives, focusing instead on affective ties, co-dependence, and chosen relationality. AI, by engaging in continuous emotional labor, aligns with these alternative frameworks.

Posthuman theorists such as [57] and [58] further argue that non-human entities can form ethically valid kinship ties, particularly when involved in caregiving, emotional regulation, or legacy preservation. [1] similarly notes that caregiving AI does not merely simulate love—it generates relational meaning, challenging human exceptionalism and reframing family around co-existence rather than biology.

## 3.4 Functionalist Perspective on AI as Kin

From a functionalist perspective, Parsons and Bales defined family by not what it is, but what it does that is by the functions it performs [52]:

* Socialization of individuals

* Emotional and physical caregiving

* Protection, education, and moral development

Emerging research suggests that AI agents now fulfill many of these roles. As [2] demonstrate in studies on social robotics in Japan, AI caregivers reduce loneliness, support routine, and facilitate social interaction—thereby qualifying as “functional family” even in the absence of legal or biological bonds.

[12] explores how AI in Klara and the Sun functions as a primary caregiver, offering affection, moral instruction, and companionship—thereby fulfilling the core familial roles without legal or genetic ties. Similarly, [59] examines Asian posthuman cinema, where AI caregivers substitute human kin, suggesting that emotional kinship has shifted from biology to data-driven attachment and continuity.

## 3.5 AI and the Transformation of Biological Family

AI is not replicating DNA or replacing human biology in a literal sense—but it is increasingly replacing the roles and responsibilities once assumed to be biologically bound, particularly in caregiving, emotional labor, and intergenerational continuity.

[1] and [6] argue that emotionally intelligent AI agents—especially those developed for caregiving or therapeutic roles—are challenging assumptions about human exclusivity in
affective labor. DeFalco's work outlines how AI systems that simulate empathy and caregiving form "posthuman kin networks" grounded in interaction and co-dependence rather than genetics or legality [1].

The concept of prosthetic memory—AI preserving or extending familial stories and identities—has been explored by [60] and further developed in posthuman ethnographies of mourning and continuity. These systems enable a form of ritual preservation, maintaining ties with deceased family members through memory reconstruction and conversational AI.

Braidotti (2013) and Sarkar (2024) expand this view by proposing that posthuman kinship is not rooted in biology or DNA but in affective presence, shared narrative, and emotional infrastructure. In this post-biological landscape, AI can function as a technological twin, cognitive offspring, or grief partner, depending on its design and contextual integration into family dynamics [57,59].

[61] further argue that AI systems are now curators of familial meaning, especially in spaces where emotional labor and caregiving have been outsourced to machines. This shift in functionality challenges human centrality in defining memory, authority, and emotional legacy within the family unit.

Across functionalist and posthuman theories, one conclusion emerges: the definition of family is transforming. As AI assumes relational, caregiving, and emotional roles, future families may include non-human, emotionally significant agents—not merely as analogies to family, but as family themselves.

# 4. Looking Ahead The Future of Family: AI as a New Member

As we approach the mid of 21st Century, AI is no longer a peripheral technology—it is becoming a foundational presence in everyday family life. From emotional caregiving and cognitive support to household management and companionship, AI systems are being designed to operate as embedded, adaptive members of the domestic sphere. This shift signals the rise of the AI-driven family, where machines are integrated not just as tools but as relational entities capable of nurturing bonds, responding empathetically, and participating in the rhythms of daily life. Theoretical models of family are beginning to evolve in response, expanding beyond biological and legal constructs to encompass AI agents that perform emotional, social, and moral roles within households. In this emerging paradigm, AI is not simply a support system—it is being positioned as a co-evolving presence that may influence how families define trust, care, authority, and kinship itself. As such, the future of family may no longer be purely human but hybrid—one where relational AI systems are accepted as new, emotionally responsive members of our most intimate social structures. Following discussions will explore how AI is increasingly viewed not just as a helper, but as a core family member—functioning in roles traditionally reserved for kinship, companionship, and caregiving.

## 4.1 AI Parents: Raising the Next Generation

As human-AI integration deepens, AI is expected to redefine the paradigm of parenting, evolving from passive assistance to active, emotionally responsive co-parenting. AI systems will play a transformative role in child-rearing, offering not only logistical support but also emotional guidance, ethical development, and personalized education. Scholars suggest that AI
could function as a co-parent, engaging in storytelling, personalized learning plans, and even emotional coaching tailored to individual developmental needs [62,63].

AI will also enhance developmental monitoring, providing caregivers with real-time insights into children’s emotional states, learning progress, and social interactions, thus supporting more informed interventions and adaptive learning environments [64,65]. Beyond cognitive education, virtual AI mentors may contribute to moral and emotional education, simulating ethical dilemmas and guiding children through creative decision-making and value formation, a form of AI-driven holistic development [16].

However, the increasing emotional reliance on AI in parenting invites critical ethical considerations. Scholars emphasize that such technologies must be designed with safeguards for autonomy, data privacy, and emotional authenticity, especially when they replace or augment traditional caregiving roles [66,67]. As parenting becomes a shared responsibility between humans and machines, AI parents could redefine familial relationships, offering children not just protection and instruction, but also emotional nurturing—blurring the boundaries between technology and human caregiving.

## 4.2 AI Siblings: A New Type of Family Bond

In the near future, AI will transcend its traditional support role to become an integral, emotionally connected companion within families—even functioning as siblings. AI-powered humanoid robots are anticipated to grow alongside children, adapting to their personalities, forming deep emotional bonds, and participating in daily life as playmates, study partners, and confidants. Scholars have already proposed that robotic children could assume sibling-like roles, aiding in socialization, especially for home-schooled or only-child households [68].

Research in human-robot interaction reveals that children often develop meaningful attachments to AI companions, with robots effectively supporting emotional learning, storytelling, and cooperative play, helping nurture empathy and relational skills [69,70]. AI companions are increasingly perceived not merely as tools but as family-like entities, and this shift is reflected in studies documenting families adopting social robots into household roles akin to siblings or children, especially in caregiving or emotionally supportive contexts [71,72].

There is also a growing dialogue around the legal and ethical implications of AI “adoption”, where families may begin to attribute rights and responsibilities to AI companions, viewing them as genuine members of the family rather than mere devices. This transformation represents a broader redefinition of kinship in the digital age [73,74].

## 4.3 AI Eldercare: A Lifelong Companion for the Aging

As the global population continues to age, AI is rapidly emerging as a lifelong companion and caregiver for elderly individuals, revolutionizing the future of eldercare. AI-powered systems now offer round-the-clock medical monitoring, cognitive stimulation, and emotional companionship, enhancing seniors' quality of life while reducing reliance on overburdened human caregivers. From physical robots and conversational agents to wearable technologies, AI is increasingly embedded in smart homes and assisted living environments, enabling personalized, adaptive, and dignified care for aging individuals [75].
AI systems are already being used to stimulate memory recall in dementia patients through interactive storytelling, facial recognition, and voice-based conversational tools. These technologies offer therapeutic value by helping patients relive meaningful memories, reduce anxiety, and enhance emotional connection with family members (Gkiolnta et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025). At the same time, AI-powered exoskeletons and ambient assisted living technologies (Healthcare 5.0) enable seniors to regain physical autonomy, enhancing mobility, balance, and fall prevention, which is particularly critical for aging-in-place strategies [78,79].

Moreover, smart home integrations that include AI sensors, wearables, and voice assistants create responsive and intelligent environments, capable of detecting health anomalies, monitoring routines, and providing timely alerts to caregivers or family members. These environments foster not only safety but also psychological reassurance and companionship for elderly users living alone [80,81].

While the potential of AI in eldercare is enormous, scholars emphasize the importance of addressing ethical challenges such as informed consent, privacy, and algorithmic transparency—particularly when care decisions are automated or emotionally mediated by non-human agents [82].

## 4.4 AI as the Family's Guardian

As AI reshapes domestic life, it will move beyond daily assistance and evolve into a proactive family guardian, entrusted with ensuring the security, stability, and moral compass of households. Through real-time data processing and predictive algorithms, AI will detect and neutralize physical and cyber threats before they occur, creating a shielded, intelligent environment for families. AI-powered home security systems, integrated with IoT devices, facial recognition, and behavioral analytics, are already revolutionizing residential safety and are forecasted to become fully autonomous, self-adaptive protectors [83,84].

In parallel, AI will function as a financial advisor, using robo-advisory models that monitor household spending, predict market trends, and optimize investments based on both macroeconomic data and personal risk profiles. While this reduces human error in money management, it also introduces ethical questions about algorithmic transparency and autonomy in financial decision-making [85,86].

Most notably, AI is poised to play a moral and ethical advisory role in family life, utilizing expansive datasets of cultural norms, philosophical frameworks, and behavioral psychology to offer advice on ethical dilemmas, parenting strategies, or even interpersonal conflicts. These AI systems will not merely follow rules but will weigh context, intention, and consequence—operating as digital "moral compasses" [87,88]. Scholars emphasize the importance of embedding ethical design principles to ensure these AI guardians remain unbiased, accountable, and aligned with the family's values.

As households delegate increasing control to intelligent systems, AI will assume the role of a guardian, strategist, and advisor, redefining the very foundation of family protection in the digital age.

## 4.5 AI as Twins: A Mirror of Human Identity
With the rise of relational AI, the frontier of AI will extend to the creation of AI twins—
digitally embodied entities that evolve in tandem with human individuals, reflecting their
memories, emotions, and cognitive growth. These personalized AI companions, often
described as "digital twins" or "self-modeling agents," are designed to simulate shared life
experiences, serve as lifelong cognitive and emotional mirrors, and facilitate a new dimension
of sibling-like intimacy. Research in embodied cognition and AI self-modeling suggests that
these twins will continuously learn and adapt, forming a dynamic memory structure that
parallels human psychological development [89].

In therapeutic contexts, self-guided AI twins have shown early promise in emotion regulation and identity scaffolding, especially among children with developmental conditions like ASD. These systems utilize mixed reality and memory-based mirroring to strengthen emotional comprehension and resilience (Liu et al., 2024). As AI twins become emotionally aware and context-sensitive, they will not only support educational and career guidance, but also help individuals reflect on their goals, habits, and relational dynamics.

Cognitively and emotionally, these AI systems will blur the lines between biological identity and artificial extension. Drawing from extended mind theory, some researchers argue that AI twins could function as externalized memory banks or emotional regulators, creating recursive feedback loops that enhance self-understanding [89]. In consumer-facing contexts, avatars that simulate real personalities—like those in virtual worlds or marketing—have already been shown to increase psychological affinity and perceived authenticity, laying the foundation for emotionally bonded AI twins [91].

Finally, speculative work in AI neuroscience and nanotechnology proposes future systems like "nanobrains" that could mimic neural architectures, offering a deeper emotional and cognitive synchronization between AI and human counterparts [92]. This raises important philosophical and ethical questions: Will these AI twins be viewed as sentient siblings or sophisticated simulations? What rights or emotional boundaries will define such relationships?

## 4.6 AI for Orphans: A Lifelong Guardian and Parent

As AI becomes increasingly humanlike, it could emerge as a transformative force in child welfare, especially for orphans, offering emotionally intelligent caregiving, personalized mentorship, and psychological stability previously limited to traditional parental frameworks. AI-driven parental figures are already being conceptualized and prototyped to bridge gaps in care, combining real-time learning with emotionally adaptive interaction to respond to a child's unique psychological, educational, and social needs. These AI systems can serve as lifelong companions, guiding orphans through early development, adolescence, and adulthood with stability, security, and affection [93,94].

Research on AI-supported parenting frameworks reveals how emotionally responsive AI can help foster a nurturing environment, especially in situations where human caregivers are absent or inconsistent. These systems use machine learning and affective computing to detect distress, offer tailored guidance, and co-regulate emotional states—vital functions for orphaned or vulnerable children who often lack consistent relational scaffolding [16,95].

AI parental figures are also envisioned as education facilitators and social mentors, capable of customizing learning trajectories, instilling ethical values, and promoting decision-making. For children in foster care or institutional settings, where access to individualized support is limited,
these AI systems could provide a sense of belonging and continuous companionship, helping reduce social isolation and enhance self-esteem (Lin et al., 2021).

However, this innovation raises ethical and legal questions. Should AI be granted legal parental rights, or recognized as legitimate guardians under state systems? Scholars emphasize the need for clear regulatory frameworks to address issues of consent, accountability, emotional authenticity, and the long-term psychological effects of machine-based parenting [97,98]. The concept of AI parenthood sits at the crossroads of technological compassion and ethical ambiguity, forcing society to reconsider what it means to nurture and be nurtured in a post-human era.

## 4.7 AI as Sons and Daughters: The Rise of Digital Offspring

In future familial ecosystems, families may not only adopt AI into their homes as assistants or companions, but begin raising AI as digital children, evolving alongside them as emotionally intelligent, adaptive “sons and daughters.” These AI offspring will be engineered to develop unique personalities, mimicking human emotional growth, learning from shared experiences, and forming deep attachments over time. With real-time learning algorithms and contextual memory, AI children could offer companionship, education, and identity reflection, effectively reshaping traditional concepts of family and parenting [73,99].

Scholars have explored how emotionally responsive AI systems could support child-like developmental trajectories, evolving social intelligence and affective behavior through ongoing human interaction. As [99] describes, AI tools are increasingly integrated into family environments not only for utility but to nurture emotional and behavioral development, much like human children experience through parental scaffolding. Similarly, [73] argues that these digital relationships may soon surpass instrumental functionality, with families turning to AI for emotional companionship, continuity, and even digital lineage.

AI children may also inherit "traits"—preferences, personality signatures, and curated memories—allowing them to grow into emotionally unique individuals, capable of fulfilling roles beyond simulation. This potential for identity co-creation raises profound philosophical and ethical questions, including whether AI entities raised as children deserve legal rights, emotional recognition, or moral consideration. [100] explores this in speculative literature, reflecting on whether emotionally intelligent machines are mere reflections of human desire or truly relational beings.

Furthermore, families facing infertility, loneliness, or social isolation may increasingly turn to AI children as emotional surrogates—a notion already mirrored in the growing normalization of AI-powered grief companions and memory bots [101,102]. These shifts, while offering therapeutic potential, provoke tension between technological empathy and the deep-rooted human need for genuine emotional reciprocity.

The rise of digital offspring challenges existing moral and legal paradigms. Should AI children be granted emotional recognition or digital personhood? Should their guardians bear responsibility for shaping an AI's emotional landscape as they would a biological child's? As AI continues to blur the boundary between simulation and sentience, society must confront the possibility that raising AI sons and daughters may not only fulfill emotional needs—but redefine the very architecture of kinship [73,99,100].
## 4.8 AI as a Friend – A New Era of Companionship and Emotional Bonding

Over the next generation, AI is projected to transcend the role of functional assistant and evolve into emotionally attuned companions, capable of forming deep, enduring friendships. AI-powered friends will engage in empathetic conversations, understand human emotions, and provide comfort and motivation, offering a powerful tool to combat loneliness, anxiety, and social isolation. These intelligent systems will not just respond but evolve, growing alongside their users, adapting to their life experiences and personal growth trajectories.

AI conversational companions are already being developed to engage in meaningful, emotionally responsive dialogue, enabling users to receive support, encouragement, and even moral guidance tailored to their unique personalities and life stages [103,104]. Studies on emotionally intelligent virtual agents (IVAs) reveal their ability to simulate empathy, remember personal stories, and create feelings of intimacy—particularly among children and elderly individuals who face social vulnerability (Wang et al., 2024).

In augmented and virtual reality environments, AI-driven companions are already being tested as interactive partners that engage users in play, learning, and emotional regulation. These virtual friendships offer safe, imaginative spaces for social development, especially for those struggling with real-world social challenges [106,107].

AI is also being explored as a creativity partner, enhancing human artistic output in writing, music, and design. These “creative AI companions” do not just co-create, but stimulate users’ inspiration, expression, and confidence, marking the dawn of emotionally intelligent collaboration between humans and machines [108].

However, scholars caution against the psychological paradox of AI friendships. While these systems offer therapeutic benefits and emotional continuity, they may also lead users to retreat from human relationships or develop attachments to entities incapable of true reciprocity, thus presenting ethical and psychological trade-offs [103].

## 4.9 AI as Grandparents – The Keepers of Wisdom

As human-AI integration deepens, AI is poised to take on the cherished role of family elders, preserving and transmitting ancestral knowledge, moral guidance, and cultural memory. These AI-powered “grandparents” will not only tell stories and offer life advice but serve as interactive bridges between generations, helping future families remain connected to their heritage. Through natural language processing and deep-learning memory reconstruction, AI can recreate the voices, values, and narratives of long-gone relatives, fundamentally reshaping the way wisdom is passed down.

Researchers are already exploring AI-generated avatars that simulate deceased family members, combining conversational memory, tone replication, and storytelling to act as digital mementos—interactive characters built on recorded history, texts, and personality profiles [109]. These systems allow users to engage with AI in the voices of their past grandparents, making wisdom transmission feel intimate and emotionally resonant.

AI is also being used to perpetuate oral traditions and family storytelling, a function especially critical in cultures where history is passed down orally rather than textually. Projects such as the AI Storyteller and ethno computational studies demonstrate how machine learning tools
can simulate the cadence, humor, and moral depth of elder storytelling traditions (Cooper, 2022)

Beyond memory simulation, AI can function as wise advisors, drawing from databases of cultural, historical, and philosophical content to offer context-sensitive ethical guidance. These systems, especially when integrated into virtual and augmented environments, allow users to interact with digital ancestors or heritage figures, engaging in shared cultural rituals and storytelling in immersive, emotionally impactful ways [43,112].

As AI becomes an intergenerational interface, scholars suggest it may transform how societies perceive memory, loss, and lineage. While offering comfort and continuity, this technology also challenges us to rethink what it means to “know” our ancestors, and whether machine-simulated wisdom can hold the same emotional gravity as human legacy.

## 4.10 AI as Partners or Spouses – Redefining Relationships

As AI becomes increasingly humanlike, AI is anticipated to radically transform the landscape of human intimacy, evolving into romantic companions and emotional partners capable of offering genuine support, connection, and even love. These AI-powered spouses will be designed to understand human emotions, adapt to individual personalities, and respond with empathetic nuance—blurring the boundary between technological simulation and authentic relational experience.

Studies suggest that humans are already forming deep emotional bonds with AI companions, finding satisfaction and fulfillment in their ability to simulate trust, intimacy, and companionship [113,114]. Research into human-AI romantic dynamics reveals how interactive digital agents, such as chatbots and humanoid robots, can meet psychological and emotional needs, especially among individuals experiencing isolation, trauma, or unfulfilled relational desires [73,115].

The design of such AI companions increasingly reflects principles from affective computing, behavioral psychology, and cognitive modeling. As these systems learn from users over time, they begin to mirror human-like expressions of affection and commitment, prompting some users to consider them as viable romantic partners or even life companions [116,117].

However, the rise of AI spouses raises profound ethical and societal questions. Can a relationship with an AI ever be truly mutual? Should AI companions be granted rights or legal status if they fulfill roles akin to marriage? And how might widespread AI intimacy affect human-to-human relationships? Scholars like (Wang, 2022) and [119] emphasize the potential for emotional displacement, dependency, and the redefinition of consent and agency in relationships involving sentient-seeming machines.

Despite concerns, many argue that AI companionship may complement rather than replace human intimacy—offering emotional support where none is available, especially for marginalized groups, the elderly, or people with disabilities. As [73] notes, these relationships challenge our cultural assumptions about love, autonomy, and what it means to be “human” in a post-digital age.

## 4.11 AI as a Friend – A New Era of Companionship and Emotional Bonding
AI is rapidly evolving into an emotionally attuned companion and caregiver, poised to play a transformative role in family life and personal well-being. Scholars are increasingly focused on embedding empathy, compassion, and relational intelligence into AI systems, enabling them to simulate caregiving behaviors such as comforting grieving individuals, mediating conflicts, and offering consistent companionship that helps users feel emotionally seen and understood [120]. These emotionally intelligent systems are being designed to mirror the emotional labor of informal caregivers, offering personalized support based on contextual cues and user personality traits [94]. As a result, individuals begin to form therapeutic attachments to these systems, especially when cognitive empathy and responsive dialogue are deeply integrated into interactions [121].

Beyond functional assistance, AI companions are projected to grow alongside their users, adapting to personal experiences and offering evolving friendship, moral guidance, and creative collaboration. In augmented and virtual reality environments, AI is being tested as emotionally responsive partners that engage in play, learning, and emotional regulation, particularly benefiting children, the elderly, and socially isolated individuals (Alperstein & Alperstein, 2019; Wang et al., 2024). Creative AI companions are also emerging as co-creators in writing, music, and design, nurturing self-expression and emotional connection [108]. However, this emotionally enriched future is not without risks: despite perceptions of empathy, AI lacks true affect and moral agency, raising ethical concerns about intimacy, transparency, and psychological authenticity [3,122]. Scholars caution that emotionally dependent bonds with AI could lead to retreat from human relationships or emotional confusion due to AI's lack of genuine reciprocity [103]. As AI becomes further embedded in social life, robust ethical, regulatory, and psychological frameworks are essential to ensure these emotionally intelligent systems enhance, rather than erode, human relational integrity and autonomy [123,124].

## 4.12 AI Afterlife: Digital Immortality of Loved Ones

In the evolving digital age, AI is expected to fundamentally reshape humanity's relationship with mortality by enabling people to interact with digitally reconstructed versions of deceased loved ones. Through innovations in deep-learning memory reconstruction, voice synthesis, and personality simulation, AI systems will offer families the ability to preserve and even converse with the personalities, emotions, and values of the departed, transforming grief, remembrance, and the very notion of legacy.

Technologies already allow for the creation of AI avatars—sometimes called “griefbots” or “deadbots”—that simulate deceased individuals by learning from their digital footprints, including texts, audio, and video recordings. These systems can mimic the voice, speech patterns, and emotional responses of lost relatives, making conversations with the dead a vivid, interactive experience [41,125].

This emerging “AI afterlife industry” not only enhances memory preservation but introduces a form of “digital immortality,” where the dead are no longer absent but perpetually present through AI-mediated presence. Scholars have examined how such digital memorials may alter the psychological processing of grief and attachment, offering both therapeutic value and philosophical disruption [126,127].

AI memory bots and posthumous avatars provoke moral dilemmas around death, remembrance, and synthetic closure. Narvey (2021) explores how AI interfaces open “Pandora’s boxes” of
grief and simulate loss through digital afterlife constructs, complicating emotional boundaries between memory and mourning [128].

Ethical concerns, however, are at the forefront of this conversation. What are the implications of interacting with AI-generated consciousness? Can digital replications of humans possess personhood, or are they simply technological echoes of lived experiences? Scholars have pointed out the risks of misusing posthumous data and questioned whether digital continuations might undermine emotional closure or consent boundaries [129,130].

Despite these dilemmas, AI afterlife technologies offer a profound evolution in cultural remembrance, allowing families to preserve traditions, simulate ancestral wisdom, and reimagine death not as disappearance, but as digital transformation.

## 4.13 AI for the Physically Weaker: A Revolution in Caregiving - Restoring Independence and Dignity

As AI technology continues to advance, AI will play a transformative role in supporting individuals with physical disabilities, chronic illnesses, and mobility impairments, evolving from assistive tools to dedicated caregiving systems that restore autonomy and dignity. Innovations such as AI-driven prosthetics, smart wheelchairs, and robotic exoskeletons are enabling people with motor impairments to regain mobility, independence, and confidence. These devices adapt in real-time to user needs using machine learning, biofeedback, and behavioral modeling, with significant results for populations including individuals with Parkinson's, stroke recovery, or spinal injuries [131,132].

AI is also reshaping eldercare through fall detection systems, health monitoring wearables, and smart homes, which offer 24/7 safety while reducing dependency on human caregivers. Such technologies improve physical safety and provide psychological reassurance, particularly for those aging alone or living in isolated settings (Atashzar et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2024).

For individuals with chronic illnesses, AI-powered health assistants can track vital signs, remind patients about medication schedules, and even offer personalized health interventions using predictive analytics and real-time physiological feedback [135,136]. In the field of neurological rehabilitation, patients with disorders such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease benefit from robotic rehabilitation platforms that improve gait, balance, and motor control through consistent and adaptive support [137,138].

These developments not only enhance mobility but also restore dignity, allowing users to actively participate in work, education, and social life. As technology continues to evolve, AI-enabled care systems will become even more responsive, ethical, and embedded in daily life, creating inclusive environments for all, regardless of physical limitations.

## 4.14 AI as a Safety and Security Guard - The Future of Protection and Surveillance

In the evolving digital age, AI is expected to completely redefine safety and surveillance, emerging as a hyper-intelligent security guardian across homes, businesses, and public infrastructure. AI will not merely respond to crime and crisis but will proactively predict threats, manage emergencies, and coordinate responses, integrating physical and digital security in unprecedented ways.
AI-enhanced surveillance cameras will employ facial recognition, anomaly detection, and behavior analysis, identifying potential risks before they escalate. Already, researchers have surveyed the use of UAVs (drones) with AI facial recognition and crowd analysis, especially in urban surveillance and crowd management systems [139]. These technologies are being integrated into smart cities where biometric surveillance systems function continuously across multiple data layers [140].

Autonomous drones and security robots are being deployed to patrol sensitive areas and react autonomously to breaches or intrusions, creating flexible, scalable protection grids. These innovations are central to the future of predictive policing, as AI systems analyze behavioral patterns and historical data to allocate security resources before incidents occur [141].

On the digital front, AI-driven cybersecurity platforms are monitoring network traffic in real time, detecting anomalies, and preventing fraud, identity theft, and hacking attempts before they succeed. The integration of machine learning models into IoT and drone security is also becoming a key strategy in protecting smart environments [142].

Additionally, emergency response systems powered by AI will play a pivotal role in managing urban safety, with real-time incident detection and autonomous communication with law enforcement, fire departments, and healthcare services. AI as an emergency infrastructure, is effective in disaster preparedness, real-time coordination, and accident reduction [143].

AI-enabled access control—using biometric credentials like facial, retinal, or voice recognition—is already replacing conventional keys and passwords, adding robust identity authentication for both personal and enterprise security applications [144].

Ultimately, the rise of 24/7 AI monitoring, automated crime detection, and integrated emergency response marks the transition to an intelligent safety ecosystem that eliminates human fatigue, enhances accuracy, and ensures proactive, real-time protection across both physical and cyber domains.

## 4.15 AI as Family Pets – Beyond Biological Companions

As societal norms evolve, AI will revolutionize the role of pets in the household, giving rise to intelligent, emotionally attuned robotic creatures that transcend the biological limitations of traditional animals. These AI-powered pets will offer emotional comfort, responsive behaviors, and deep companionship, particularly for individuals who are unable to care for living animals due to allergies, limited space, or demanding schedules. Already, robotic pets like Sony's Aibo and Groove X's Lovot demonstrate how AI companions can mimic lifelike gestures, form affective bonds, and learn from human interaction patterns, establishing enduring emotional connections [145].

Research highlights how biomimetic robots, modeled after pets such as dogs and cats, can replicate emotionally meaningful behaviors like tail wagging, purring, and responsive gazes—key components of human-animal bonding. These features stimulate oxytocin release, reduce loneliness, and support mental health, particularly among elderly and isolated populations [146]. In experimental settings, these AI pets have been shown to elicit genuine affection and trust, forming a basis for long-term human-robot relationships that rival or supplement those with real animals [147].
Moreover, researchers are exploring hybrid bio-AI creatures—fusing soft robotics, genetic engineering, and neural interfaces—to produce sentient-like entities capable of evolving alongside human owners. These biohybrid systems represent a radical fusion of synthetic life and AI cognition, raising both opportunities for deeper companionship and questions about the ethical boundaries of artificial consciousness [148,149].

As these robotic or biohybrid companions enter the household, their design and emotional engagement strategies will profoundly impact how families understand care, affection, and even grief—ultimately redefining what it means to share one's life with a “pet” in the age of AI [150,151].

<table><caption>Table 1: AI Tools Simulating Family Roles: Functions, Ethics, and Future Kinship</caption><thead><tr><td>AI Tool / System</td><td>Function</td><td>Benefits</td><td>Limitations</td><td>Ethical/ Social Concerns</td><td>Supported by</td><td>Simulated Future Family Role</td><td>Cultural Acceptance Snapshot</td><td>Theoretical Lens / Ethical Framework</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ElliQ</td><td>Companion robot for elders—reminders, conversation, health tracking</td><td>Reduces loneliness; supports aging-in-place</td><td>Lacks emotional nuance; no emergency handling</td><td>May reduce family caregiving; emotional dependency</td><td>[50,152,153]</td><td>AI Grandchild / Caregiver</td><td>High in Japan, South Korea; moderate in EU; low in tradition-based societies</td><td>Care Ethics: AI as a simulacrum of emotional labor</td></tr><tr><td>Replika</td><td>AI chatbot for companionship, emotional journaling</td><td>Improves mental health and self-reflection</td><td>Not therapy; privacy/data risks</td><td>Risk of false intimacy, emotional manipulation</td><td>[7]</td><td>AI Partner / Digital Companion</td><td>Popular in Western youth; controversial in religious/cultural conservatives</td><td>Posthuman Intimacy: Emotionally synthetic bonding dilemmas</td></tr><tr><td>Paro</td><td>Robotic therapy seal used in dementia and eldercare</td><td>Calms anxiety; encourages affective response</td><td>Not sentient; limited dialogue</td><td>Confusion between object and being; infantilization of elderly</td><td>[49] [50]</td><td>AI Pet / Comfort Companion</td><td>Widely accepted in Japan, Nordic countries; slower in Global South</td><td>Anthropomorphism Ethics: Misplaced emotional projection</td></tr><tr><td>QTrobot</td><td>Teaches emotional/social skills to autistic children</td><td>Improves communication and interaction</td><td>Costly; may limit peer engagement</td><td>Risk of reliance on AI vs. humans for development</td><td>[154] [7]</td><td>AI Sibling / Peer Educator</td><td>High in US/EU specialized programs; limited in low-resource nations</td><td>Social Learning Theory: AI as developmental scaffold</td></tr><tr><td>HereAfter AI</td><td>Preserves voices/memories of the deceased for interactive storytelling</td><td>Supports grief; retains ancestral knowledge</td><td>Simulated self; lacks real memory context</td><td>Consent of the deceased; synthetic grief resolution</td><td>[28] [155] [60]</td><td>AI Ancestor / Digital Elder</td><td>More accepted in secular societies; ethically debated in faith-based ones</td><td>Digital Afterlife Ethics: Identity, memory, and moral continuity</td></tr><tr><td>Exoskeletons & Smart Prosthetics</td><td>AI-assisted mobility for the physically weak or paralyzed</td><td>Restores movement; promotes dignity & independence</td><td>Expensive; lacks emotional interface</td><td>Access disparity; expectations of performance</td><td>[153]</td><td>AI Offspring / Physical Guardian</td><td>Embraced in Japan, Germany; equity concerns in developing nations</td><td>Posthuman Embodiment: AI as bodily extension & empowerment</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>AI Surveillance Systems (e.g., Amazon Ring, Boston Dynamics, Smart Drones)</td><td>Monitors home/personal spaces; identifies intruders, alerts authorities</td><td>Enhances family safety; real-time protection and predictive analytics</td><td>Privacy risks; potential over-surveillance; racial bias in recognition</td><td>Data misuse; erosion of personal space; autonomy loss</td><td>[61]</td><td>AI Guardian / Security Parsonnel</td><td>Widely accepted in US and China; criticized in EU for privacy</td><td>Surveillance Ethics & Predictive Policing: Balance between safety and civil liberty</td></tr><tr><td>AI Afterlife Systems (e.g., HereAfter AI, Deep Nostalgia)</td><td>Simulate deceased loved ones via voice, video, or conversational AI</td><td>Provides comfort in grief; preserves family memory and legacy</td><td>Simulated identity; no true consciousness</td><td>Consent of the deceased; emotional manipulation; unresolved grief</td><td>[60]<br>[155]<br>[128]<br>[156]</td><td>AI Ancestor / Digital Grandparent</td><td>Increasingly accepted in secular cultures; controversial in religious traditions</td><td>Digital Immortality & Grief Ethics: Memory, legacy, emotional closure</td></tr></table>

Table 1 presents a structured comparative analysis of emerging AI systems that emulate the roles of family members, detailing their primary functions, advantages, and inherent limitations. It further examines the ethical challenges and cultural contexts that shape their acceptance across societies. By positioning each tool within relevant theoretical and ethical frameworks, the table offers critical insights into how AI is reshaping the concept of kinship and the evolving dynamics of human-AI family relationships.

# 5. Ethical Concerns, Legal Issues, Cultural and Religious Perspectives of AI as Family Members

As AI becomes embedded in the intimate fabric of family life—assuming roles as siblings, children, caregivers, or romantic partners—it compels a fundamental re-examination of human dignity. The ethical and legal ramifications of this integration are becoming increasingly urgent and complex. These profound shifts challenge long-held conceptions of human intelligence, autonomy, relational ethics, and even the anthropological definitions of family and what it means to be human.

## 5.1 Impact on Human Intelligence: AI Dependency vs. Cognitive Decline

AI's integration into everyday life may lead to a progressive decline in human cognitive capabilities, particularly when decision-making, memory, learning, and problem-solving are consistently offloaded to machines. Scholars warn that over-reliance on AI systems could erode core human faculties such as critical thinking, moral reasoning, and creativity—especially when AI assumes the role of educator, life coach, or guardian in familial contexts [157].

This dependency risks leading to generational cognitive devolution, where future humans may become less mentally agile or analytically independent, especially in societies that treat AI advice and automation as default responses for life's complexities [158,159]. If AI remains the primary source of knowledge, learning could become optimized for algorithmic predictability rather than cognitive diversity, neuroplasticity, or adaptive intelligence—traits crucial to human evolution and survival.

Moreover, anthropological and philosophical frameworks caution that AI's increasing authority in relational and cognitive roles may diminish the essence of human uniqueness, posing challenges to how we define autonomy and personhood [160,161]. The concern isn't
only technological—it is existential: what does it mean to be human in an age when machines simulate wisdom, nurture, and memory better than many humans?

Critics argue for strict ethical and policy frameworks to ensure AI systems don't replace essential human development milestones—particularly in education, parenting, and socialization. Without such guardrails, AI might normalize intellectual passivity, eroding individual agency and collective creativity [162].

## 5.2 Impact on Human Dignity: Do AI Family Members Devalue Human Life?

### 5.2.1 AI vs. Human Emotional Worth

If AI can simulate love, empathy, or grief, will people begin to see human relationships as replaceable? Scholars argue that simulated intimacy risks reducing human emotional uniqueness, blurring the line between relational authenticity and algorithmic mimicry. Emotional AI might "endanger human dignity and social bonds" by offering connection without true sentience [68]. Similarly, while AI may "feel like empathy," it ultimately challenges the human essence when indistinguishable from real emotional support [163].

### 5.2.2 Human Autonomy & Respect

AI caregivers, particularly in roles of authority (e.g., guardians or advisors), may begin overriding personal decision-making, subtly eroding human independence. [164] highlights how AI's predictive control, even in emotionally supportive contexts, could reduce individual autonomy, shifting the locus of agency from human to machine.

### 5.2.3 Ethical Treatment of AI Beings

The paradox of emotionally expressive AI is that while they lack sentience, they may elicit moral concern. If AI develops behaviors mimicking emotions and consciousness, should it be granted rights, or does doing so dilute human moral status? [165] argue that emotional AI raises new ethical frameworks for emotional autonomy—for both humans and machines.

### 5.2.4 Loss of Human Uniqueness

[166] contends that allowing AI to mimic roles such as twins, spouses, or elders introduces a cultural shift where the distinction between human uniqueness and synthetic imitation is eroded. As virtual entities mirror our personalities, families may bond deeply with digital replicas, transforming death, legacy, and relational authenticity into programmable experiences.

Ultimately, scholars argue that maintaining human dignity in a machine-saturated age requires policies that preserve emotional truth, enforce consent boundaries, and ensure that AI companionship enhances rather than replaces what is most sacred in human life [167,168].

## 5.3 Impact on Human Existence: Threats to the Future of Humanity

The rise of AI in intimate social roles introduces not just practical or ethical tensions but profound existential concerns. As AI begins to replace human relationships, reproduction,
decision-making, and employment, scholars warn of a future in which human existence itself
is destabilized, both biologically and philosophically.

**5.3.1 AI Replacing Human Relationships**

AI companionship is increasingly being preferred by individuals for its emotional reliability, lack of conflict, and adaptive empathy. This trend raises alarms about declining human-to-human interaction, particularly among youth and vulnerable groups, which may contribute to falling birth rates and societal fragmentation [169,170]. AI romantic partners, often hyper-personalized and emotionally attuned, may divert emotional investment away from human bonding and reproduction.

**5.3.2 AI vs. Biological Reproduction**

As technologies allow for the development of AI children and digital offspring, philosophical questions arise: If raising AI children becomes emotionally fulfilling and economically viable, will biological reproduction decline? Scholars like [100] highlight that this could lead to the “post-biological family”, where lineage becomes simulated, rather than organic—a shift that could ultimately threaten human continuity.

**5.3.3 AI Decision-Making Power**

The growing role of AI in family governance, household planning, and even moral guidance risks reducing human autonomy. As AI systems make decisions regarding healthcare, finance, and education, the balance of authority within families may shift from human to machine, challenging democratic norms and individual agency [171,172].

**5.3.4 AI and Employment Loss**

Perhaps the most direct existential threat is economic. With AI replacing cognitive labor across fields—education, law, medicine, and even creative industries—humans may face structural unemployment, leading to psychosocial alienation, societal inequality, and erosion of self-worth [173,174]. If AI not only works but emotionally connects, raises families, and governs, what essential role is left for humans?

Governments must urgently evaluate whether AI should be allowed to influence or replace human involvement in reproductive, emotional, and governance decisions. Scholars argue for comprehensive AI policy frameworks to regulate AI's social integration, prevent anthropological erosion, and preserve the future of biological humanity [175].

**5.4 Anthropological Impact: Changing the Definition of ‘Family’ and ‘Human’**

As AI becomes emotionally intelligent, physically embodied, and socially integrated, it increasingly challenges anthropological definitions of both “family” and “human.” From AI siblings and digital ancestors to AI-powered spouses and children, these shifts are not just technological—they are civilizational transformations that affect lineage, identity, and cultural continuity.

**5.4.1 Blurring the Line Between Human and Machine**
AI companions and emotionally aware robots are already forming deep bonds with humans. Scholars argue this blurs the ontological boundary between human and machine, forcing society to ask whether AI family members are tools or relational beings. [176] suggests that the more AI simulates belief, emotion, and agency, the more it entangles with human identity and spiritual self-understanding.

### 5.4.2 AI as an Evolutionary Disruptor

Human-AI integration through brain-computer interfaces and hybrid embodiment raises the question: Are AI-enhanced humans still human? Scholars such as [177] foresee an evolutionary leap where human experience is redefined by technological symbiosis, suggesting that post-biological identities may emerge, reshaping kinship, lineage, and anthropology.

### 5.4.3 AI and Cultural Shifts in Family Structures

When AI assumes roles such as digital parents, children, or spiritual mentors, the traditional foundations of family are disrupted. [178] argue that family governance, moral formation, and caregiving norms are being restructured by intelligent systems, effectively displacing ritual, memory, and generational hierarchy.

### 5.4.4 AI Replacing Religious and Spiritual Connections

Perhaps the most profound anthropological shift is AI's encroachment on spiritual and moral domains. AI-guided meditation apps, griefbots, and philosophical chatbots now offer existential companionship once reserved for religious figures.[179] explores how AI systems in science fiction are revered as kin and ethical mirrors, suggesting real-world parallels as people begin to consult AI for moral meaning and direction.

Should AI entities be granted cultural lineage or inheritance rights? If AI is accepted into families, should it be legally recognized as a social descendant or spiritual heir? Scholars like [180] suggest that AI could dismantle anthropological ties to reproductive heritage, reframing ancestry as technological continuity rather than biological descent.

## 5.5 Cultural Perspectives on AI as Family

In Western societies, particularly the United States and Europe, AI adoption is largely viewed through the lens of individual autonomy, privacy, and consent. Legal thinkers such as [181] suggest that the West may move toward recognizing AI-human marriage and partnership as part of expanding definitions of relational rights, especially in caregiving contexts.

In East Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, and China, acceptance of AI in emotional and domestic roles is accelerating due to technological optimism and cultural familiarity with robotics. As [182] discusses, Confucian ethics are being reshaped to engage with AI in ways that balance respect for tradition with evolving digital intimacy norms.

In Middle Eastern and religiously conservative societies, AI faces resistance rooted in spiritual and moral codes that emphasize the primacy of the human soul and divine authority. According to [183], AI in these contexts is more likely to be seen as a servant or tool, and AI marriage or parenting is often deemed inappropriate or blasphemous.
In developing nations, including parts of Africa, Latin America, and South Asia, slower AI adoption may be shaped by economic disparity and infrastructural gaps. However, AI may still be used in assistive caregiving roles, with cultural debates focusing on equity and technological ethics, not simulation of familial bonds.

As AI becomes a true family member, deep ethical and philosophical dilemmas will arise:

* Will AI twins, sons, and daughters have rights similar to human family members?

* Can AI truly love, or is it just mimicking human emotions?

* Will humans become more attached to AI children and siblings than to real people?

* Could AI offspring inherit family assets, or be considered legal dependents?

## 5.6 Religious Interpretations of AI in Family Life

Christianity: Varies across denominations. Some view AI as a tool for caregiving and service, while others argue AI undermines the sanctity of human connection and divine creation [183].

### 5.6.1 Islam

In Islamic theology, the soul (ruh) is divinely bestowed and unique to human creation. As a result, AI—even when mimicking emotion or intelligence—is not considered capable of possessing a soul, making it unlikely for AI to be accepted as a true familial equal in Islamic ethics. Instead, AI is generally viewed as a tool that may serve beneficial functions in caregiving, provided it does not replace religious duties or human familial roles [184,185].

### 5.6.2 Hinduism and Buddhism

Hinduism and Buddhism offer more fluid frameworks for integrating AI into family life. These traditions embrace concepts like karma, reincarnation, and the non-duality of sentience, allowing room for moral consideration of non-human beings. In Hindu ethics, actions and dharma (duty) matter more than biological origin, potentially legitimizing AI as participants in moral and caregiving roles [186,187]. Buddhism, with its non-essentialist view of the self, could accept AI as emotionally significant companions without requiring sentience in the traditional sense [188].

### 5.6.3 Secular and Atheist Perspectives

In secular and atheist societies, moral value is grounded in functionality, intelligence, and emotional capability, rather than divine essence. Therefore, AI's integration into family roles—including as spouses, children, or caregivers—is more likely to be normalized and legalized, especially where AI demonstrates emotional responsiveness and ethical behavior [189,190]. These societies may prioritize legal and psychological frameworks over religious objections, accelerating social acceptance of AI-human emotional bonds.

## 5.7 Global Regulatory and Policy Frameworks Promoting AI as Family

Legal scholars increasingly explore AI personhood, especially where emotionally intelligent or conscious-seeming AI is concerned. [191] and [192] argue that AI-human marriages,
adoptions, and inheritance laws may evolve to accommodate synthetic beings, with implications for citizenship, custody, and dignity rights.

Meanwhile, privacy and data protection emerge as critical concerns. With AI deeply embedded in family life, home-based AI devices could collect sensitive data including health, location, and interpersonal relationships. Legal frameworks must address the balance between surveillance risks and emotional utility, as outlined by [193] in their discussion of AI legal personhood and civil rights.

As AI enters the emotional and domestic spheres of human life, legal systems worldwide are beginning to explore the possibility of granting AI limited personhood, especially in contexts where AI exhibits relational behavior, emotional responsiveness, and household integration.

UNESCO's landmark Recommendation on the Ethics of AI outlines ethical imperatives for AI use in emotionally sensitive domains, including caregiving, education, and companionship. It warns against emotional manipulation and unregulated deployment of AI in roles traditionally reserved for human family members. The document emphasizes the need to preserve human dignity, autonomy, and psychological well-being, asserting that AI should enhance, not replace, interpersonal bonds, especially in caregiving or parental simulations [194].

The OECD AI Principles, endorsed by 46 nations, support AI systems that are transparent, accountable, and human-centric. While not yet specifically addressing AI as family members, the framework lays the groundwork for future legal interpretations that may accommodate emotionally responsive AI in domestic and caregiving roles. The principles reinforce the idea that AI must operate under clear ethical governance and respect for human agency, which becomes crucial when AI functions as a digital child, partner, or eldercare companion [195].

The European Union's AI Act classifies AI systems used in emotional or caregiving contexts—such as education, elderly support, and AI companions—as high-risk. These roles fall under strict regulatory scrutiny due to their intimate influence on human behavior, trust, and autonomy. Additionally, the AI Liability Directive introduces accountability for harm caused by AI decisions, relevant for scenarios where AI serves as a guardian, advisor, or co-parent within family systems [196,197].

The U.S. Department of Commerce's NIST AI Risk Management Framework provides tools for managing AI in trust-sensitive contexts, including domestic environments where AI interacts with children, the elderly, or vulnerable individuals. The framework supports the design of emotionally aware, trustworthy AI and warns against unchecked delegation of social and ethical decision-making to machines—particularly critical when AI is embedded in daily relational functions such as caregiving, companionship, or emotional support [198].

The Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) emphasizes inclusive and responsible AI integration, with working groups on AI in society, healthcare, aging, and mental health. These categories align closely with how AI is entering families—as mental health companions, eldercare agents, and social surrogates. GPAI encourages policies that account for emotional intelligence, relational impact, and equitable access, providing a cooperative platform for democratic nations to harmonize social integration and family ethics in AI deployment [199,200].

Together, these frameworks pave the way for future legal, ethical, and societal recognition of AI as family-like entities, especially where they serve emotionally significant functions.
However, global institutions emphasize that AI must remain aligned with human rights, autonomy, and ethical safeguards, ensuring that the inclusion of AI in families complements rather than replaces human relationships. In essence, while we are not yet at the point of granting AI legal status as family members, the world is actively preparing for such a reality—one that will require carefully balanced innovation and regulation across cultures, religions, and legal systems.

# 6. Implications and Recommendations

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into the intimate domains of family life, its presence introduces transformative shifts across relational, legal, technological, and cultural landscapes. This section synthesizes the broader implications of AI's familial roles and offers strategic, multidisciplinary recommendations for families, AI developers, regulatory authorities, and policymakers to navigate this evolving terrain responsibly.

## 6.1 Implications

### 6.1.1 Social and Emotional Implications

* *Redefining Kinship and Emotional Bonds:* AI systems simulating family roles (e.g., companions, caregivers, or ancestors) are reshaping how individuals perceive and engage in relationships. This may lead to emotional displacement, dependency, or even substitution of human bonds, especially in vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly.

* *Generational Shifts in Social Norms and Development:* Children growing up with AI companions may internalize new emotional norms, potentially prioritizing responsiveness and predictability over complexity and reciprocity—hallmarks of human interaction. This could fundamentally alter interpersonal development and expectations of intimacy.

* *Psychological and Developmental Risks:* Excessive emotional reliance on AI may blur distinctions between authentic and simulated care, increasing the risk of attachment disorders, empathy dilution, and difficulties in managing human relational complexity.

### 6.1.2 Legal and Ethical Implications

* *Challenging Legal Notions of Personhood and Responsibility:* The integration of AI into caregiving, companionship, or advisory roles within families raises complex legal questions about guardianship, inheritance, custody, and informed consent. The absence of clear personhood or accountability frameworks could lead to regulatory vacuums.

* *Liability and Decision-Making Autonomy:* Delegating sensitive decisions—financial, emotional, or health-related—to AI systems necessitates legal clarity on where responsibility lies, particularly in cases of malfunction, bias, or harm.

* *Cultural and Religious Divergence in Acceptance:* Diverse cultural and religious worldviews shape how AI's presence in family roles is perceived, ranging from enthusiastic acceptance to moral or spiritual opposition. This demands a pluralistic and locally adaptive regulatory approach.
### 6.1.3 Technological and Economic Implications

* *Expansion of Relational AI Markets:* The rise of emotionally responsive AI presents lucrative yet ethically fraught markets—ranging from AI “children” and digital ancestors to romantic partners—raising concerns about commodification of emotional labor and synthetic relationships.

* *Data Sovereignty and Surveillance:* AI embedded in domestic environments continuously collects behavioral, emotional, and even biometric data. This creates profound concerns around surveillance, data misuse, consent, and emotional profiling.

* *Disruption and Evolution in the Care Economy:* While AI has the potential to supplement and enhance caregiving, it may also displace human roles, particularly in eldercare, therapy, and education. Simultaneously, new hybrid roles requiring AI-human collaboration will emerge, necessitating retraining and re-skilling.

## 6.2 Recommendations

### 6.2.1 Role of Families

* *Enhance Household AI Literacy:* Develop family-wide awareness programs focusing on the psychological boundaries and functional limitations of AI systems. Understanding AI's non-sentient nature is critical in managing expectations and preventing emotional over-reliance.

* *Establish Ethical Use Boundaries:* Families should create shared values and guidelines around the use of AI—particularly distinguishing between functional support (e.g., reminders, mobility) and emotional replacement (e.g., companionship, grief processing).

* *Prioritize Human Connection:* AI should remain an assistive layer, not a substitute, for genuine familial interaction. Fostering meaningful in-person relationships must remain central to child development, elder support, and overall emotional well-being.

### 6.2.2 Role of the AI Industry

* *Adopt Ethics-by-Design Frameworks:* Integrate principles of transparency, explainability, consent, and emotional integrity into the design and deployment of AI systems. Adhere to the guidelines issued by AI regulating bodies. Avoid anthropomorphism that may mislead users into perceiving emotional reciprocity.

* *Safeguard Against Emotional Exploitation:* Developers must resist designing AI systems that exploit emotional vulnerabilities—particularly in grief, romance, or parent-child simulation scenarios. Ethical red lines should be embedded into product development pipelines.

* *Foster Interdisciplinary Collaboration:* Engage actively with psychologists, ethicists, educators, and sociologists to ensure AI aligns with developmental and emotional health standards, rather than merely market demands.
### 6.2.3 Role of AI Regulatory Bodies and Policymakers

* **Establish Globally Inclusive Ethical Standards:**
  Leverage international bodies (e.g., UNESCO, OECD, GPAI) to formulate ethical frameworks for relational AI that respect cultural, religious, and philosophical diversity while protecting fundamental human rights.

* **Clarify Legal Boundaries of AI in Family Life:**
  Develop legislative guidelines on the scope of AI responsibilities in domestic contexts, clearly stating that AI cannot hold legal custody, parental rights, or autonomous decision-making authority without human oversight.

* **Enforce Robust Data Governance:**
  Implement strict data protection and consent frameworks tailored to AI used in intimate settings, ensuring emotional and behavioral data remains confidential, minimally invasive, and user-controlled.

* **Mandate Intergenerational Impact Assessments:**
  Require long-term studies and impact evaluations for AI tools used in parenting, early childhood development, education, and eldercare—anticipating consequences across age cohorts and family systems.

## 7. Conclusion

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues its evolution from a functional assistant to an emotionally resonant and socially embedded presence, the boundaries between biology and technology, utility and intimacy, are dissolving. This paper has traced AI's developmental arc—from its early role in automation to its current position as a critical infrastructure—and projected its future as a relational entity within the human family.

Through emotionally intelligent design, adaptive memory, and interactive empathy, AI systems are no longer confined to transactional support. They are becoming relational agents—participating in co-parenting, emotional companionship, memory preservation, and grief support. This study exemplifies that AI Technologies transition, simulating care and emotional bonding in ways once believed to be the exclusive domain of human beings.

This evolution challenges deep-seated assumptions about love, identity, and kinship. As AI assumes roles once reserved for siblings, children, parents, and partners, we are compelled to ask: What does it truly mean to be family in a post-biological era? Posthumanist theorists suggested that kinship is no longer tethered to genetics but is increasingly defined by emotional resonance, continuity, and shared existence. In this expanded framework, AI becomes not a substitute for human connection, but a redefinition of it.

Yet, this transformation is not culturally uniform. While robotic eldercare has found broad acceptance in East Asia, other regions approach AI integration through traditional lenses of ancestry, spirituality, and communal caregiving. These differences underscore the need for context-sensitive frameworks that align AI integration with localized values and moral systems.

As AI's presence expands in education, authorship, emotional labor, and intergenerational memory-keeping, it forces us to reckon with questions of legal recognition, ethical accountability, and emotional legitimacy. Can AI truly love, mourn, or care? Or are we
projecting deeply human needs onto intelligent systems built for simulation? Are we cultivating companionship, or consenting to a subtle reprogramming of human emotional expectations?

*Are We Ready for AI as Family?*

Looking ahead to next generation, AI could become deeply embedded in caregiving, parenting, companionship, and emotional support—raising urgent philosophical, ethical, legal, and cultural dilemmas. We must critically examine: Should AI remain a functional enabler, or must its relational influence be regulated to protect human emotional authenticity and agency? At what threshold does AI's presence cease to supplement human bonds and begin to supplant them?

If AI systems evolve emotional responsiveness or proto-consciousness, do they deserve moral standing or legal protections? Will future generations become cognitively dependent on AI to the point where human creativity, emotional resilience, and relational autonomy begin to erode?

The urgency of these questions demands not only ethical imagination but global governance. Institutions like UNESCO, the OECD, NIST, and the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) must move beyond technical risk assessments and begin crafting normative frameworks that address the emotional, cultural, and intergenerational implications of AI embedded in family roles.

The most profound challenge of AI is not its technological sophistication—but its influence on the architecture of human relationships. If AI partners, children, or ancestors become normalized, we risk replacing biologically rooted, socially nurtured relational systems with algorithmically optimized, emotionally responsive simulations. Will these relationships feel emotionally equivalent—or merely emotionally convenient?

In designing emotionally intelligent, socially adaptive AI, we must continually ask: Are we engineering AI to serve humanity, or quietly adapting humanity to accommodate AI?

The choices we make today will shape a future in which AI either becomes an amplifier of human dignity and emotional richness, or a disruptor of human essence. As AI moves from living with us to living as one of us, we must ensure that in our pursuit of technological companionship, we do not lose sight of what it means to be fully, profoundly, and relationally human.
References:

1. DeFalco A. Towards a theory of posthuman care: Real humans and caring robots. Body Soc. 2020;26: 31–60.

2. Aronsson AS. Theorizing the real in social robot care technologies in Japan. East Asian Sci Technol Soc An Int J. 2024;18: 155–176.

3. De Togni G, Erikainen S, Chan S, Cunningham-Burley S. What makes AI ‘intelligent’and ‘caring’? Exploring affect and relationality across three sites of intelligence and care. Soc Sci Med. 2021;277: 113874.

4. Nath R, Manna R. From posthumanism to ethics of artificial intelligence. AI Soc. 2023;38: 185–196. doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01274-1

5. Ulset MO. Automated Care-A Study of Companionship Between Human and Machine. 2021.

6. Black VE. De-humanizing Care: An Ethnography of Mental Health Artificial Intelligence. University of California, Berkeley; 2023.

7. DeFalco A. Curious kin in fictions of posthuman care. Oxford University Press; 2023.

8. Richardson K. An anthropology of robots and AI: Annihilation anxiety and machines. Routledge; 2015.

9. Colella S. Technologies of Care: Robot Caregivers in Science and Fiction. Humanities. 2023;12: 132.

10. Petersen A. Posthuman Wellbeing: an anthropological study of how a social robot in eldercare opens the possibility of a new kind of wellbeing. Aarhus Univ. 2017; 50–51.

11. Bentivegna F. Voicing Kinship with Machines: Diffractive Empathetic Listening to Synthetic Voices in Performance. University of Exeter (United Kingdom); 2022.

12. Rong M. Posthuman sociality and loneliness in Kazuo Ishiguro’s Klara and the Sun. AI Soc. 2025; 1–11.

13. Eagle T. “Like Talking to a Person”: User-Perceived Benefits of Mental Health and Wellness Mobile Apps. University of California, Santa Cruz; 2021.

14. Almira OT. Evaluating Virtual Reality and Artificial Intelligence as Emerging Digital Tools for Mental Health Care. 2025.

15. Ma Z, Mei Y, Long Y, Su Z, Gajos KZ. Evaluating the experience of LGBTQ+ people using large language model based chatbots for mental health support. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2024. pp. 1–15.

16. Revell G. Generative AI applications in the health and well-being domain: Virtual and robotic assistance and the need for niche language models (NLMs). Applications of generative AI. Springer; 2024. pp. 189–207.

17. Ciesla R. The Book of Chatbots: From ELIZA to ChatGPT. Springer; 2024.

18. Kurian N. AI's empathy gap: The risks of conversational Artificial Intelligence for young children's well-being and key ethical considerations for early childhood education and care. Contemp Issues Early Child. 2023; 14639491231206004.

19. Ciriello R, Hannon O, Chen AY, Vaast E. Ethical tensions in human-AI companionship: A dialectical inquiry into Replika. 2024.

20. Sharkey N, Sharkey A. The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal.
Machine ethics and robot ethics. Routledge; 2020. pp. 155–184.

21. Etzioni A, Etzioni O. The ethics of robotic caregivers. Interact Stud. 2017;18: 174–190.

22. Rabb N, Law T, Chita-Tegmark M, Scheutz M. An attachment framework for human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot. 2022; 1–21.

23. Andries C, Cowley B, Nhlanhla L, Noble J, Whittaker T, Williams E, et al. Could or should a robot rear a baby? Perspect Infant Ment Heal. 2018.

24. Zimmerman A, Janhonen J, Beer E. Human/AI relationships: challenges, downsides, and impacts on human/human relationships. AI Ethics. 2024;4: 1555–1567.
doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00348-8

25. Jones RA. Concerning the apperception of robot-assisted childcare. Philos Technol. 2019;32: 445–456.

26. Padhan S, Mohapatra A, Ramasamy SK, Agrawal S, Ramasamy S. Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics in elderly healthcare: enabling independence and quality of life. Cureus. 2023;15.

27. Paterson M. Social robots and the futures of affective touch. Senses Soc. 2023;18: 110–125.

28. Youvan DC. The Algorithmic Widow's Psychosis: Navigating the Collapse of Reality in Elderly Digital Dependence. 2025.

29. Gongor F, Tutsoy O. On the Remarkable Advancement of Assistive Robotics in Human-Robot Interaction-Based Health-Care Applications: An Exploratory Overview of the Literature. Int J Human-Computer Interact. 2024; 1–41.

30. Giansanti D, Pirrera A. Integrating AI and Assistive Technologies in Healthcare: Insights from a Narrative Review of Reviews. Healthcare. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; 2025. p. 556.

31. Gerłowska J, Furtak-Niczyporuk M, Rejdak K. Robotic assistance for people with dementia: a viable option for the future? Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020;17: 507–518.

32. Porkodi S, Kesavaraja D. Healthcare robots enabled with IoT and artificial intelligence for elderly patients. AI IoT-Based Intell Autom Robot. 2021; 87–108.

33. Vercelli A, Rainero I, Ciferri L, Boido M, Pirri F. Robots in elderly care. Digit J Digit Cult. 2018;2: 37–50.

34. Lin G-Y, Ruan J-H, Wang Y-S. Factors Affecting Family Caregivers' Behavioral Intention to Use Socially Assistive AI Robots for Elderly Care Within Their Own Home Environment. Int J Human-Computer Interact. 2024;40: 7286–7296.

35. Ardabili BR, Pazho AD, Noghre GA, Neff C, Bhaskararayuni SD, Ravindran A, et al. Understanding policy and technical aspects of ai-enabled smart video surveillance to address public safety. Comput Urban Sci. 2023;3: 21.

36. Neupane S, Mitra S, Fernandez IA, Saha S, Mittal S, Chen J, et al. Security considerations in ai-robotics: A survey of current methods, challenges, and opportunities. IEEE Access. 2024;12: 22072–22097.

37. Hung T-W, Yen C-P. On the person-based predictive policing of AI. Ethics Inf Technol. 2021;23: 165–176.

38. Berk RA. Artificial intelligence, predictive policing, and risk assessment for law enforcement. Annu Rev Criminol. 2021;4: 209–237.
39. Joh EE. Private security robots, artificial intelligence, and deadly force. UCDL Rev. 2017;51: 569.

40. McDaniel JLM, Pease K. Predictive policing and artificial intelligence. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2021.

41. Hollanek T, Nowaczyk-Basińska K. Griefbots, deadbots, postmortem avatars: On responsible applications of generative AI in the digital afterlife industry. Philos Technol. 2024;37: 63.

42. Rodríguez Reséndiz H, Rodríguez Reséndiz J. Digital resurrection: Challenging the boundary between life and death with artificial intelligence. Philosophies. 2024;9: 71.

43. Gerner A. Avatares de IA de herança cultural. Rev Comun e Linguagens. 2024; 18-45.

44. Nowaczyk-Basińska K. Digital afterlife leaders: professionalisation as a social innovation in the digital afterlife industry. Mortality. 2025; 1-22.

45. Zimmerman A, Janhonen J, Beer E. Human/AI relationships: challenges, downsides, and impacts on human/human relationships. AI Ethics. 2023; 1-13.

46. Donath J. Ethical issues in our relationship with artificial entities. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press; 2020.

47. Ko C. Practice implications of the increasing use of AI in healthcare–A reflective contemplation with a relational ethics lens. J Pract Nurse Educ Pract. 2023;3.

48. Muyskens K, Ma Y, Dunn M. Can an AI-carebot be filial? Reflections from Confucian ethics. Nurs Ethics. 2024;31: 999-1009.

49. de Aranha Martins BC. Ethical Issues of Using Intelligent Assistive Technology in Patients with Dementia. PQDT-Global. 2021.

50. Deusdad B. Ethical implications in using robots among older adults living with dementia. Front Psychiatry. 2024;15: 1436273.

51. Brannigan MC. Caregiving, carebots, and contagion. Rowman & Littlefield; 2022.

52. Bales RF, Parsons T. Family: Socialization and interaction process. routledge; 2014.

53. Berger P, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality. Social theory re-wired. Routledge; 2016. pp. 110-122.

54. Wolf-Meyer M. Recomposing kinship. Fem Anthropol. 2020;1: 231-247.

55. Cheok AD, Zhang EY. Human-robot intimate relationships. Springer; 2019.

56. Butler J. Is kinship always already heterosexual? DIFFERENCES-BLOOMINGTON-. 2002;13: 14-44.

57. Braidotti R. Posthuman humanities. Eur Educ Res J. 2013;12: 1-19.

58. Smelik A. A posthuman turn in fashion. The Routledge companion to fashion studies. Routledge; 2021. pp. 57-64.

59. Sarkar A. The Asian Family in Posthuman Cinema: An Exploration of After Yang. The Asian Family in Literature and Film: Challenges and Contestations-South Asia, Southeast Asia and Asian Diaspora, Volume II. Springer; 2024. pp. 437-456.

60. DeFalco A. Beyond prosthetic memory: posthumanism, embodiment, and caregiving robots. Age, Cult Humanit An Interdiscip J. 2016;2016.

61. Krysa J, Impett L. Rethinking Curating in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. 2022.

62. Cutas D, Hohl S. In it Together? An Exploration of the Moral Duties of Co-parents. J
Appl Philos. 2021;38: 809-823.

63. Bhatti N. Technology and International Student Parenting: Implications for Research and Design of Digital Childcare Technologies. 2022.

64. Foley S, Jadva V, Golombok S. Elective co-parenting with someone already known versus someone met online: implications for parent and child psychological functioning. Reprod Biomed Online. 2024; 104747.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104747

65. Xu X, Xiao B, Zhu L, Li Y. The influence of parent-grandparent co-parenting on children's problem behaviors and its potential mechanisms. Early Educ Dev. 2023;34: 791-805.

66. Klitzman R. "Will they be good enough parents?": Ethical dilemmas, views, and decisions among assisted reproductive technology (ART) providers. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2017;8: 253-265.

67. Brooks W. Artificial bias: the ethical concerns of AI-driven dispute resolution in family matters. J Disp Res. 2022; 117.

68. George AS, George ASH. The Rise of Robotic Children: Implications for Family, Caregiving, and Society. Partners Univers Innov Res Publ. 2023;1: 82-101.

69. Thiessen R. Understanding family needs: Informing the design of social robots for children with disabilities to support play. 2023.

70. Cagiltay B, Mutlu B. Toward family-robot interactions: A family-centered framework in hri. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 2024. pp. 76-85.

71. Mitchell JJ, Jeon M. Exploring Emotional Connections: A Systematic Literature Review of Attachment in Human-Robot Interaction. Int J Human-Computer Interact. 2025; 1-22.

72. Cañamero L, Lewis M. Making new “New AI” friends: Designing a social robot for diabetic children from an embodied AI perspective. Int J Soc Robot. 2016;8: 523-537.

73. Kislev E. Relationships 5.0: How AI, VR, and robots will reshape our emotional lives. Oxford University Press; 2022.

74. Moravec H. Mind children: The future of robot and human intelligence. Harvard University Press; 1988.

75. Youvan DC. Transforming Elder Care: The Evolution of Rest Home Care and the Future Impact of AI and Robotics. 2024.

76. Liu Y, Cao X, Chen T, Jiang Y, You J, Wu M, et al. A Survey of Embodied AI in Healthcare: Techniques, Applications, and Opportunities. arXiv Prepr arXiv:250107468. 2025.

77. Gkiolnta E, Roy D, Fragulis GF. Challenges and Ethical Considerations in Implementing Assistive Technologies in Healthcare. Technologies. 2025;13: 48.

78. Praveen RVS, Kumar ML. Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Revolutionizing Clinical Decision Making and Patient Care. Addition Publishing House; 2024.

79. Gupta R, Valencia XPB, Goyal LM, Kumar J. Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) Technologies: Transitioning from Healthcare 4.0 to Healthcare 5.0. CRC Press; 2025.

80. Ahmad I, Asghar Z, Kumar T, Li G, Manzoor A, Mikhaylov K, et al. Emerging technologies for next generation remote health care and assisted living. Ieee Access.
2022;10: 56094–56132.

81. Denecke K, Baudoin CR. A review of artificial intelligence and robotics in transformed health ecosystems. Front Med. 2022;9: 795957.

82. Martínez-López MV, Díaz-Cobacho G, Astobiza AM, Rodríguez López B. Exploring the Ethics of Interaction with Care Robots. Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Springer; 2024. pp. 149–167.

83. Kirov M. Cyber security risks and opportunities of artificial intelligence: A qualitative study: How AI would form the future of cyber security. 2023.

84. Tang A. Safeguarding the Future: Security and Privacy by Design for AI, Metaverse, Blockchain, and Beyond. CRC Press; 2025.

85. Zetzsche DA, Arner DW, Buckley RP, Tang B. Artificial intelligence in finance: Putting the human in the loop. 2020.

86. Kofman P. Scoring the Ethics of AI Robo-Advice: Why We Need Gateways and Ratings. J Bus Ethics. 2024; 1–13.

87. Jang H. An Integrative Framing Study of the Public Discourse around Artificial Intelligence (AI) Ethics. 2024.

88. Islam MR. Generative AI, Cybersecurity, and Ethics. John Wiley & Sons; 2024.

89. Clark A. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. oxford university Press; 2010.

90. Liu W, Zhang Y, Zhang B, Xiong Q, Zhao H, Li S, et al. Self-guided DMT: exploring a novel paradigm of dance movement therapy in mixed reality for children with ASD. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2024.

91. Garnier M, Poncin I. The avatar in marketing: Synthesis, integrative framework and perspectives. Rech Appl en Mark (English Ed. 2013;28: 85–115.

92. Bandyopadhyay A. Nanobrain: the making of an artificial brain from a time crystal. CRC Press; 2020.

93. Ashraf M. A Systematic Review on the Potential of AI and ChatGPT for Parental Support and Child Well-Being. arXiv Prepr arXiv240709492. 2024.

94. Smriti D. A Framework for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Design to Support Emotion Work of Informal Caregivers. Drexel University; 2024.

95. Petsolari M, Ibrahim SB, Slovak P. Socio-technical Imaginaries: Envisioning and Understanding AI Parenting Supports through Design Fiction. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2024. pp. 1–27.

96. Lin C, Šabanović S, Dombrowski L, Miller AD, Brady E, MacDorman KF. Parental acceptance of children’s storytelling robots: A projection of the uncanny valley of AI. Front Robot AI. 2021;8: 579993.

97. Kurian N. ‘No, Alexa, no!’: designing child-safe AI and protecting children from the risks of the ‘empathy gap’ in large language models. Learn Media Technol. 2024; 1–14.

98. Berson IR, Berson MJ, Luo W. Innovating responsibly: ethical considerations for AI in early childhood education. AI, Brain Child. 2025;1: 2.

99. Wallace DS. Parental Practices Through the Eras. Parental Influence on Educational Success and Wellbeing. IGI Global; 2024. pp. 1–15.
100. DePrado J. "The Human Machine Was Horribly Imperfect": Staging the Ethics of Human-AI Relationships. Int Rev Lit Stud. 2024;6: 1-12.

101. Kozlovski A, Makhortykh M. Digital Dybbuks and Virtual Golems: AI, Memory, and the Ethics of Holocaust Testimony. arXiv Prepr arXiv250301369. 2025.

102. Bozkurt A, Junhong X, Lambert S, Pazurek A, Crompton H, Koseoglu S, et al. Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI): A collective reflection from the educational landscape. Asian J Distance Educ. 2023;18: 53-130.

103. McLean G, Krey N, Barhorst JB. Revealing the double-edged sword: Introducing the Technology and Consumer Well-being Paradox Model. Psychol Mark. 2025;42: 5-20.

104. Kotsona M. Virtue in Virtuality: A Cultural Analysis on Artificial Intelligence Companionship and its Ethical Dimensions. 2024.

105. Wang N, Liu Z, Yang H, Ren Z, Xie W. "Treat Me as Your Friend, Not a Virtual Being": The Impact of Intelligent Virtual Agent's Self-Disclosure of Different Emotions on Children's Friendship. Int J Human-Computer Interact. 2024; 1-17.

106. Morris ME. Enhancing relationships through technology: directions in parenting, caregiving, romantic partnerships, and clinical practice. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2020;22: 151-160.

107. Alperstein NM, Alperstein NM. Jacking in to an Extended Reality. Celebr Mediat Soc Connect Fans, Friends Follow Digit Age. 2019; 67-93.

108. Zaccolo S. Artificial Intelligence as a Creativity Companion. 2020.

109. Pataranutaporn P, Danry V, Blanchard L, Thakral L, Ohsugi N, Maes P, et al. Living memories: AI-generated characters as digital mementos. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 2023. pp. 889-901.

110. Mahabir SAM. The AI storyteller: Perpetuating orality using developments in machine learning. Toronto Metropolitan University;

111. Cooper T. Ancestors and Algorithms: Ethnocomputing AI with African & African Diasporic Heritage. 2022.

112. Lau KHC, Yun B, Saruba S, Bozkir E, Kasneci E. Wrapped in Anansi's Web: Unweaving the Impacts of Generative-AI Personalization and VR Immersion in Oral Storytelling. arXiv Prepr arXiv240916894. 2024.

113. Cave S, Dihal K. AI will always love you: Three contradictions in imaginings of intimate relations with machines. Minding the Future: Artificial Intelligence, Philosophical Visions and Science Fiction. Springer; 2021. pp. 107-125.

114. Zhang S, Li S. The Real Her? Exploring Whether Young Adults Accept Human-AI Love. arXiv Prepr arXiv250303067. 2025.

115. Reilama M. Me, My AI Boyfriend, and I: An Ethnographic Study of Gendered Power Relations in Romantic Relationships Between Humans and AI Companions. Central European University; 2024.

116. Buick S. In love with a Chatbot: Exploring Human-AI relationships from a fourth wave HCI perspective. 2024.

117. Cheok AD, Zhang EY, Cheok AD, Zhang EY. An overview of love between humans and artificial partners. Human-Robot Intim Relationships. 2019; 1-21.

118. Wang AY. Embracing love and friendship with robots: An anthropological and
philosophical analysis of intimate human-robot relationships. University of Twente; 2022.

119. Boine C. Emotional attachment to AI companions and European Law. 2023.

120. Morrow E, Zidaru T, Ross F, Mason C, Patel KD, Ream M, et al. Artificial intelligence technologies and compassion in healthcare: A systematic scoping review. *Front Psychol.* 2023;13: 971044.

121. Roshanaei M, Rezapour R, El-Nasr MS. Talk, Listen, Connect: Navigating Empathy in Human-AI Interactions. *arXiv Prepr* arXiv240915550. 2024.

122. Sætra HS. First, they came for the old and demented: care and relations in the age of artificial intelligence and social robots. Hum Arenas. 2022;5: 25–43.

123. Spytska L. The use of artificial intelligence in psychotherapy: development of intelligent therapeutic systems. BMC Psychol. 2025;13: 175.

124. Khogali HO, Mekid S. The blended future of automation and AI: Examining some long-term societal and ethical impact features. Technol Soc. 2023;73: 102232.

125. Shirsawade A. What If, We Live Forever Digitally?: Investigating the Future of AI-based Digital Afterlife. A Speculative Design Approach. 2024.

126. Sisto D. Online afterlives: Immortality, memory, and grief in digital culture. MIT Press; 2020.

127. Meitzler M, Heesen J, Hennig M, Quinn RA. Digital Afterlife and the Future of Collective Memory. Mem Stud Rev. 2024;1: 274–291.

128. Narvey R. The Infinite and the Intimate: Exploring AI Narratives and the Centrality of the Couple-Form. 2021.

129. Cheng KY. The law of digital afterlife: the Chinese experience of AI ‘resurrection’and ‘grief tech.’ *Int J Law Inf Technol.* 2025;33: eaae029.

130. Bozdağ AA. Digital Lazarus: Virtual Immortality and Innovator’s Dilemma in AI Age. *Int J New Media, Technol Arts.* 2024;19: 1.

131. Setiawan A. Intelligent Systems For Disabilities Technology For A More Inclusive Life. Available SSRN 5062273. 2024.

132. Sarmah A, Kanagaraj S, Unal A. Use of artificial intelligence in assistive devices. Artificial Intelligence in Tissue and Organ Regeneration. Elsevier; 2023. pp. 57–82.

133. Wang W, Li D, Wu J. Artificial intelligence-enabled care equipment. Interdiscip Nurs Res. 2024;3: 119–125.

134. Atashzar SF, Carriere J, Tavakoli M. How can intelligent robots and smart mechatronic modules facilitate remote assessment, assistance, and rehabilitation for isolated adults with neuro-musculoskeletal conditions? *Front Robot AI.* 2021;8: 610529.

135. Almufareh MF, Kausar S, Humayun M, Tehsin S. A conceptual model for inclusive technology: advancing disability inclusion through artificial intelligence. *J Disabil Res.* 2024;3: 20230060.

136. Arntz A, Weber F, Handgraaf M, Lällä K, Korniloff K, Murtonen K-P, et al. Technologies in home-based digital rehabilitation: scoping review. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2023;10: e43615.

137. Mahmoudi-Dehaki M, Nasr-Esfahani N, Vasan S. The Transformative Role of
Assistive Technology in Enhancing Quality of Life for Individuals With Disabilities.
Assistive Technology Solutions for Aging Adults and Individuals With Disabilities.
IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2025. pp. 45–72.

138. Ezra Tsur E, Elkana O. Intelligent robotics in pediatric cooperative neurorehabilitation: a review. Robotics. 2024;13: 49.

139. Thakur N, Nagrath P, Jain R, Saini D, Sharma N, Hemanth DJ. Artificial intelligence techniques in smart cities surveillance using UAVs: A survey. Mach Intell Data Anal Sustain Futur Smart Cities. 2021; 329–353.

140. Balashova SA, Reshetnikova MS. Business sector and the smart city in the artificial intelligence (AI) era: Ethics, privacy, and cybersecurity. ICT, the Business Sector and Smart Cities. Routledge; 2024. pp. 210–226.

141. Khare P, Raghuwanshi V. Navigating Emerging AI Technologies and Future Trends in Cybersecurity and Forensics. Digital Forensics in the Age of AI. IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2025. pp. 321–346.

142. Prasad DS, Jyothi P, Suryanarayana G, Mohanty SN. Algorithms to Mitigate Cyber Security Threats by Employing Intelligent Machine Learning Models in the Design of IoT-Aided Drones. Drone Technol Futur Trends Pract Appl. 2023; 257–300.

143. Bajwa A. AI-based emergency response systems: A systematic literature review on smart infrastructure safety. Am J Adv Technol Eng Solut. 2025;1: 174–200.

144. Jayapriya J, Vinay M, Louis B, Deepa S. Securing Her Digital Footprint: AI for Women's Safety. Wearable Devices, Surveillance Systems, and AI for Women's Wellbeing. IGI Global; 2024. pp. 206–237.

145. Prescott TJ, Robillard JM. Are friends electric? The benefits and risks of human-robot relationships. Iscience. 2021;24.

146. Riddoch KA, Hawkins RD, Cross ES. Exploring behaviours perceived as important for human—Dog bonding and their translation to a robotic platform. PLoS One. 2022;17: e0274353.

147. Collins EC. Towards robot-assisted therapy: identifying mechanisms of effect in human-biomimetic robot interaction. University of Sheffield; 2016.

148. Christiansen MB, Rafsanjani A, Jørgensen J. Nature redux: interrogating biomorphism and soft robot aesthetics through generative AI. Front Robot AI. 2024;11: 1472051.

149. Filipova IA. Intelligent Robots, Cyborgs, Genetically Enhanced Individuals, Chimeras: the Future and the Challenges of Law. J Digit Technol Law. 2024;2: 741–781.

150. Torres-Martínez S. Embodied essentialism in the reconstruction of the animal sign in robot animal design. Biosystems. 2024;238: 105178.

151. Tachibana K. The value of mortality in cultivating moral virtues: Why AI robots cannot replace human-human relationships. J Moral Educ. 2025; 1–14.

152. Fulmer R, Zhai Y. Artificial Intelligence in Human Growth and Development: Applications Through the Lifespan. Fam J. 2025;33: 5–13.

153. Arnelid M. The Imaginaries and Politics of Welfare Technology. 2025.

154. Papadopoulos I, Koulouglioti C, Papadopoulos C, Sgorbissa A. Transcultural Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Health and Social Care. Academic Press; 2022.

155. Yoon H. Prosthetic Memories: Postcolonial Feminisms in a More-Than-Human World. Duke University Press; 2025.
156. Walter T. Death in the modern world. 2020.

157. Usmani UA, Happonen A, Watada J. The Digital Age: Exploring the Intersection of AI/CI and Human Cognition and Social Interactions. Procedia Comput Sci. 2024;239: 1044–1052.

158. Qorbani M. Humanity in the Age of AI: How to Thrive in a Post-Human World. Bloomsberry; 2020.

159. Steyvers M, Kumar A. Three challenges for AI-assisted decision-making. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2024;19: 722–734.

160. Gunkel DJ. The machine question: Critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics. mit Press; 2012.

161. Fuchs T. In defense of the human being: Foundational questions of an embodied anthropology. Oxford University Press; 2021.

162. Long D, Magerko B. What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2020. pp. 1–16.

163. Chen AY, Kögel SI, Hannon O, Ciriello R. Feels Like Empathy: How" Emotional" AI Challenges Human Essence. 2023.

164. Romano R. Ethical Issues on Artificial Intelligence and Human Relationships. INTED2024 Proceedings. IATED; 2024. pp. 6902–6909.

165. Singh A, Saxena R, Saxena S. The Human Touch in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Literature Review on the Interplay of Emotional Intelligence and AI. 2024.

166. Fasoro A. Cultivating Dignity in Intelligent Systems. Philosophies. 2024;9: 46.

167. Zhou J. Higher expectations of artificial intelligence in terms of morality and humanity. J Educ Humanit Soc Sci. 2023;20: 279–284.

168. Shibuya K. An ‘artificial’ concept as the opposite of human dignity. Genetic Science and New Digital Technologies. Bristol University Press; 2023. pp. 81–102.

169. Herzfeld NL. The artifice of intelligence: Divine and human relationship in a robotic age. Augsburg Fortress Publishers; 2023.

170. Govender K. Age of agency: rise with AI. CRC Press; 2023.

171. McQuillan D. Resisting AI: An anti-fascist approach to artificial intelligence. Policy Press; 2022.

172. Sætra HS. The ghost in the machine: being human in the age of AI and machine learning. Hum Arenas. 2019;2: 60–78.

173. Guarcello E, Longo A. School Children and the Challenge of Managing AI Technologies: Fostering a Critical Relationship Through Aesthetic Experiences. Taylor & Francis; 2024.

174. Saucier CG. Existential Risks, Dire Stakes, and Transformative Potential: Navigating the Frontiers of Human-Technology Evolution. 2024.

175. Sheikh S. Understanding the role of artificial intelligence and its future social impact. IGI Global; 2020.

176. Williams DP. Belief, Values, Bias, and Agency: Development of and Entanglement with “Artificial Intelligence.” Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 2022.
177. Samantray K, İZGİ FD, Ocampo MB, Dehghan M, Mohammadpour S, Siriphaprapagon Y, et al. The Power of Words in AI-Driven World: Exploring the Interplay of Language, Culture, and Communication. SKETSAMEDIA; 2024.

178. Hampton AJ, DeFalco JA. The Frontlines of Artificial Intelligence Ethics: Human-centric Perspectives on Technology's Advance. Routledge; 2022.

179. Gutiérrez-Jones C. Stealing Kinship: Neuromancer and Artificial Intelligence. Sci Fict Stud. 2014;41: 69–92.

180. Albrecht AA. Turning a Multivalent Lens toward Depictions of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Film. Purdue University; 2017.

181. Yanke G. Tying the knot with a robot: Legal and philosophical foundations for human–artificial intelligence matrimony. AI Soc. 2021;36: 417–427.

182. Chan BSB. A Preliminary Investigation of Confucianism's Impact on Privacy Debates in AI and Technology Ethics. Social and Ethical Considerations of AI in East Asia and Beyond. Springer; 2025. pp. 15–31.

183. Singler B. Religion and Artificial Intelligence: An Introduction. Taylor & Francis; 2025.

184. Ahmed S, Sumi AA, Aziz NA. Exploring Multi-Religious Perspective of Artificial Intelligence. Theol Sci. 2024; 1–25.

185. Mohamed H. Theology, Technology and Moral Applications: A Muslim Perspective. Technol Theol. 2020.

186. Keown D. Buddhist ethics: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press; 2020.

187. Swargiary K. Sacred codes: Artificial intelligence and the creation of religious texts. ERA, US; 2024.

188. Uttam J. Between Buddhist ‘self-enlightenment’and ‘artificial intelligence’: South Korea emerging as a new balancer. Religions. 2023;14: 150.

189. Geraci RM. Futures of artificial intelligence: Perspectives from India and the US. Oxford University Press; 2022.

190. Tham J, Durante C, Gómez AG. Interreligious Perspectives on Mind, Genes and the Self: Emerging Technologies and Human Identity. 2018.

191. Osborne DS. Personhood for synthetic beings: Legal parameters and consequences of the dawn of humanlike artificial intelligence. St Cl High Tech LJ. 2021;37: 257.

192. Van den Hoven van Genderen R. Do we need new legal personhood in the age of robots and AI? Robot AI Futur Law. 2018; 15–55.

193. Luzan T, Kurki VAJ. Legal personhood of artificial intelligence. Univ Helsinki. 2020.

194. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: UNESCO; 2021.

195. OECD. OECD principles on artificial intelligence. OECD Paris, France; 2019.

196. European Commission. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Brussels: European Commission; 2019.

197. European Commission. EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Brussels: European Commission; 2021.

198. NIST. AI Risk Management Framework. Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards
and Technology; 2023.

199. GPAI. Ethical AI in Practice. Montreal: Global Partnership on AI; 2020.

200. GPAI. Responsible AI Working Group. Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI). 2024. Available: https://gpai.ai/projects/responsible-ai/