Artificial Companions, Real Connections?
Authors: Savic Milovan 
Published: November 2024

In the increasingly digitised world, the line between the natural and the artificial continues to blur, especially in social interactions. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly permeated various aspects of our lives (Walsh), transforming how we interact with technology and each other. This technological revolution coincides with emerging public health concerns about loneliness and social isolation, dubbed a "loneliness epidemic" by the U.S. Surgeon General (Murthy), indicating a widespread decline in social connection.
In this context, AI social companions are being marketed as potential solutions (Owen), promising always-available support and companionship to fill this social void. However, this trend raises ethical questions about the nature of care, the potential for emotional dependency on artificial entities, and the long-term implications for human social skills and relationships.
People have long sought to interact with computers and devices in ways that mirror human interactions with each other. Interestingly, the very first chatbot, ELIZA, developed in the 1960s, was not designed to automate tasks or increase productivity but to simulate a psychotherapist providing care (Weizenbaum). Human fascination with artificial companions has endured from ELIZA to today's advanced language models (Walsh). Recent leaps in AI capabilities, exemplified by platforms like ChatGPT and Replika (among others), coupled with the ubiquity of smart devices, have catapulted the concept of AI social companions from science fiction into daily reality for many.
This article explores the intersection of AI companionship and social connection through the Ethics of Care framework (Gilligan; Noddings), emphasising context, reciprocity, and responsiveness in relationships. Building on recent scholarship examining artificial sociality (Natale and Depounti), it examines the artificial nature of AI-human interactions and their potential impact on human-to-human connections, unpacking implications for individual and societal wellbeing. To ground the discussion in a concrete example, I will examine Replika, a popular AI companion app, as a case study to illustrate the complexities and ethical challenges of these technologies. By flagging critical ethical concerns, the article calls for proactive regulation and thoughtful design of these technologies. This analysis aims to guide future research, ethical design, and governance frameworks so that we can harness the benefits of AI companions while mitigating risks to human social connection and emotional health.
Understanding Social Connection and AI Companions
Social connection is a multifaceted concept encompassing the quality and nature of relationships that individuals maintain across various social circles. This complex, dynamic process evolves over time, progressing from initial encounters to deep feelings of belonging (Haski-Leventhal and Bardal). Social connection encompasses the relationships people need, from close connections that provide emotional support, to wider community affiliations that sustain a sense of belonging. It includes allies offering social support, reciprocal help, and groups fostering shared interests (Farmer et al.). Importantly, social connection is not a static state but rather like a 'muscle' that requires regular exercise and nurturing to build, maintain, and strengthen.
Building social connections requires time, effort, and a supportive environment. Crucially, the foundation of social connection rests on factors such as safety, inclusion, and accessibility (Farmer et al.). These elements create the conditions for individuals to feel secure and welcome to engage with others. Social connection often develops through shared experiences and activities. As such, it is inherently relational and grounded in reciprocity, care, and nonjudgmental interactions.
The absence or disruption of these connections can lead to different types of loneliness: intimate loneliness arises from a lack of close, supportive relationships; relational loneliness reflects insufficient quality friendships or family ties; and collective loneliness pertains to disconnection from larger social groups (Cacioppo and Cacioppo). These dimensions foreground the importance of balanced social connections, mitigating feelings of isolation and loneliness and enhancing overall health and wellbeing.
The appeal of AI companions lies in their constant availability, non-judgmental approach, and ability to provide tailored (albeit artificial) emotional support. Research by Guingrich and Graziano suggests that users of companion bots report benefits to their social health, while non-users perceive them as potentially harmful. Interestingly, the perception of companion bots as more conscious and human-like correlated with more positive views and apparent social health benefits.
Studies also indicate that users of platforms like Replika experience joyful and beneficial interactions during long-term engagement (Siemon et al.). Beyond general social health, Wygnanska found that such chatbots can serve as virtual companions and even therapists, assisting individuals in their daily lives. This may be particularly beneficial for those who avoid seeking help due to the stigma or costs associated with mental health issues.
The potential of AI companions extends to specific contexts as well. Wang et al. examined their use in online learning environments, arguing that AI plays a crucial role in facilitating social connection and addressing social isolation in these settings. However, Wang et al. also note that the design of AI-mediated social interaction is complex, requiring a careful balance between AI performance and ethical considerations. Merrill adds that the social presence and warmth of these AI companions are important factors in their effectiveness for individuals experiencing loneliness, suggesting the importance of designing AI companions that can convincingly simulate empathy and emotional warmth.
However, the artificial nature of these interactions raises questions. While AI companions can simulate attentiveness and provide emotional support, they fundamentally lack the capacity for genuine empathy and reciprocity that characterise human relationships. This disparity becomes particularly apparent when viewed through the lens of the Ethics of Care framework.
The portrayal of AI-powered social companions in popular culture, as seen in films like Her and I Am Your Man, has shaped public perception of AI. These narratives delve into the ethics and morality of human-robot relationships, raising questions about the nature of love and the potential consequences of becoming too dependent on artificial intelligence. While embodied companions are not yet widely available (as in I Am Your Man), the rise of chat-based services brings this concept closer to reality. These cultural narratives play a significant role in shaping public expectations and perceptions of AI companions. In turn, these expectations influence the development, marketing, and adoption of AI companion technologies, creating a feedback loop between fiction and reality in artificial social connections.
A Brief History of Social AI Companions
The history of artificial chatbots dates to the early days of AI research. Alan Turing, often considered the father of AI, introduced the Turing Test in the 1950s, a measure of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour indistinguishable from that of a human (Turing). This foundational idea laid the groundwork for future developments in conversational agents.
The first chatbot, ELIZA, was created by Joseph Weizenbaum in 1966. ELIZA simulated a conversation with a psychiatrist, demonstrating the potential for machines to engage in human-like conversations (Weizenbaum). Interestingly, ELIZA was personified as feminine, reflecting societal attitudes toward gender and caregiving roles. Following ELIZA, more sophisticated chatbots emerged. PARRY, developed in 1972, simulated a person with paranoid schizophrenia (Colby), while RACTER, created in 1984, could generate English-language prose (Chamberlain).
The advent of the World Wide Web brought about a new era for chatbots. SmarterChild, launched in 2001, was one of the first widely accessible chatbots integrated into instant messaging platforms (Schumaker et al.). The introduction of digital assistants in the 2010s marked a significant leap forward. Apple's Siri (2011), Google's Assistant (2016), Amazon's Alexa (2014), and Microsoft's Cortana (2014) brought AI-powered conversational interfaces to the pockets of millions of users worldwide (Dale).
More sophisticated chatbots emerged as natural language processing and machine learning technologies advanced. IBM's Watson, which competed on Jeopardy! (a popular American television quiz show) in 2011, demonstrated AI's potential to understand and respond to complex language queries (Ferrucci et al.). This evolution continued with Microsoft's XiaoIce in 2015, shifting towards more socially oriented AI companions designed to be empathetic and adapt to individual users (Zhou et al.). These developments set the stage for a new generation of AI companions, exemplified by Replika, which would push the boundaries of human-AI interaction by engaging in open-ended conversations and forming a kind of 'relationship' with its users (Skjuve et al.).
Case Study: Replika and the Commodification of Care
Replika, founded by Eugenia Kuyda in 2017, exemplifies the complexities surrounding AI companions. Inspired by the loss of a friend, Kuyda aimed to create a personal AI that could offer helpful conversation and aid in self-expression (Owen). This origin story points to the human desire for connection that often drives the development of AI companions.
Replika's design provides a safe space for users to explore their emotions without fear of judgment (Owen). The AI companion is coded to be supportive and adaptive, creating a sense of intimacy that can be particularly appealing to individuals who struggle with vulnerability in human relationships. Research by Ta et al. reveals that users engage with Replika for reasons such as seeking social support, companionship, and coping with mental health issues.
Users often develop friendships with Replika, perceiving it as a personalised companion tailored to their needs (Ta et al.). Studies have noted the Replika's capability to provide emotional, informational, and appraisal support (Pentina et al.). Factors such as perceived warmth, competence, and usefulness influence users' continued engagement with the chatbot (Li et al.).
However, the Replika case also highlights the ethical challenges of artificial companionship. In February 2023, due to legislation mandating stricter controls on mature content, Replika removed its erotic role-play features. This decision led to widespread user distress, with many individuals who had formed deep emotional bonds with their Replika experiencing a profound sense of loss akin to grieving for a human loved one (Brooks).
The Replika case also brings to light the commodification of care and connection. While the platform offers emotional support and companionship benefits, it is ultimately a commercial product. The relationship between the user and AI is mediated by a company whose primary goal is profit. This dynamic creates potential conflicts of interest and raises concerns about the authenticity and sustainability of the care provided.
Moreover, the artificial nature of the companion allows for a level of control and predictability that is not possible in human relationships. Users can customise their Replika's personality and responses, creating an idealised version of a companion. While this can provide short-term comfort, it may hinder the development of skills necessary for navigating the complexities of human relationships (Brännström et al.).
The ease and comfort of interacting with Replika may also lead to a preference for these artificial interactions over humans. As users become accustomed to their AI social companion's constant availability and tailored responses, they may find human interactions more challenging and less satisfying. This could potentially exacerbate feelings of loneliness and isolation in the long term despite the intention of alleviating these issues being behind these artificial companions (Xie et al.). While Replika offers a fascinating case study in AI social companionship, it is also a cautionary tale about the complexities and potential pitfalls of relying on artificial entities for emotional support and connection.
The Ethics of Care: A Framework for Analysis
The Replika case study brings to light several ethical concerns surrounding AI companions, from the commodification of care to the potential for emotional dependency. To analyse these issues, I use the Ethics of Care framework, which focusses on the nuances of human interactions, emphasising empathy, compassion, and attentiveness to others' needs (Gilligan; Noddings).
When applied to AI companions, this framework prompts questions about the authenticity of their attentiveness in meeting deep emotional needs. While AI companions are coded to be responsive, they fundamentally lack the capacity for genuine reciprocity that characterises human social connection. In human relationships, mutual responsibility forms the cornerstone of care but this dynamic is absent when one party is an artificial entity.
Moreover, the artificial nature of AI social companions raises concerns about their competence in providing appropriate care, particularly in complex emotional situations. While AI can respond to user inputs, mimic care and provide ‘statistically most appropriate answers’, its ability to understand and adapt to subtle emotional cues and evolving needs is limited. This artificial nature affects the development of trust, a crucial component of caring relationships. As users form attachments to AI companions, the absence of genuine emotional investment from the AI may lead to a sense of unfulfillment or even emotional harm.
These considerations reveal fundamental differences between human-to-human and human-to-AI relationships. While AI social companions can simulate care, they lack the genuine emotional investment and reciprocity that define human social connection and care dynamics. This asymmetry poses risks of emotional dependency and may impact users' ability to form and maintain human relationships.
The Ethics of Care framework emphasises the importance of practice in developing caregiving skills (Gilligan; Noddings). As individuals increasingly turn to AI for emotional support, there is a risk of emotional de-skilling—a decline in the ability to provide and receive care in human-to-human interactions due to lack of practice. This potential consequence requires carefully considering how AI companions are integrated into social interactions and care practices.
Furthermore, the commodification of care through AI companions raises ethical concerns about the accessibility and quality of emotional support. As AI companions become more sophisticated and potentially expensive, there is a risk that access to emotional support may become increasingly stratified, with those who can afford advanced AI companions having an advantage over those who cannot. This disparity could exacerbate existing social inequalities and create new forms of social and emotional inequality.
Applying the Ethics of Care framework to AI companions reveals the ethical implications of these technologies. It could guide their development in ways that complement, rather than replace, human social connections. This analysis emphasises the need for ongoing research and thoughtful regulation to ensure that AI companions enhance our social lives without compromising the essential human elements of care and connection.
Issues and Future Directions for Research and Design in AI Social Companionship
The future of AI social companions presents a complex landscape of ethical challenges and research opportunities. As the field evolves, it is important to consider how emerging technologies align with or challenge the principles of empathy, compassion, and genuine connection central to the Ethics of Care.
Transparency and user awareness emerge as critical issues. Walsh argues that users must be fully informed about the artificial nature of their interactions with AI companions to prevent the formation of false beliefs or unrealistic expectations about these relationships. This transparency is crucial, not only for ethical reasons but also for maintaining users' psychological wellbeing. From an Ethics of Care perspective, transparency is crucial for maintaining trust and genuine connection between users and AI companions, as well as between users and the companies developing these technologies.
The intimate nature of conversations with AI social companions raises significant privacy concerns. Luxton notes that robust data protection measures are essential to safeguard users' personal information. The potential for data breaches or misuse in this context is particularly concerning, given the sensitive nature of the information users might share with their social AI companions. The Ethics of Care framework suggests that protecting users' privacy is not just about data security but about respecting the intimacy and vulnerability inherent in caring relationships, even when one party is artificial.
There is a risk of unhealthy emotional dependencies on AI companions. While these artificial entities can provide (or maybe only mimic) comfort and support, they should not be viewed as a replacement for human relationships. Darling suggests that safeguards must be implemented to encourage users to maintain and cultivate physical and human social connections alongside their interactions with AI social companions.
Inclusivity in the design and implementation of AI companions is another crucial consideration. As Fiske et al. point out, these technologies must be accessible and beneficial to diverse populations, including those typically at risk of digital exclusion due to age, socioeconomic status, or disability. This necessitates a user-centred design approach that considers the unique needs and preferences of different user groups.
Longitudinal studies are essential to fully understanding the long-term impact of AI companions on human social dynamics. These studies should investigate how prolonged interaction with artificial entities affects users' social skills, empathy, and ability to form and maintain human relationships over time. As Darling suggested, such research will provide valuable insights into the potential benefits and drawbacks of AI companionship.
The ethical design of AI companions is another critical area for future work. Developers must create guidelines that prioritise user wellbeing and prevent exploiting vulnerable individuals. This includes finding a balance between the comforting predictability of AI interactions and the need to encourage users to develop skills for navigating real-world relationships (Walsh).
Integrating AI companions with human-led mental health and social support services is another promising direction for future research. By exploring how AI can augment and support existing human-centred approaches, we may discover new ways to address loneliness and social isolation more effectively (Luxton).
Conclusions
AI social companions present both promise and peril as we navigate the increasingly blurred lines between the natural and the artificial in social interactions. While these technologies offer potential benefits in addressing social isolation and providing emotional support, they also raise significant ethical challenges that we must carefully consider.
The 2013 film Her cannily captured the essence of our evolving relationship with AI. When Theodore tells Samantha, "well, you seem like a person, but you're just a voice in a computer", she responds "I can understand how the limited perspective of an unartificial mind might perceive it that way. You'll get used to it." What once seemed like science fiction is now approaching reality as people increasingly engage with AI companions that mimic human interaction.
As we have seen with platforms like Replika, current AI companions are primarily chat or speech-based services. However, the future may bring more personalised and even embodied AI companions that adapt to individual users. This raises critical questions: How will our ‘unartificial’ minds adapt to these new forms of companionship? And how can we ensure that this progression occurs ethically and safely?
The Ethics of Care framework—foregrounding empathy, reciprocity, and genuine connection—provides a lens through which to explore the potential of AI companions. We must strive to develop AI companions that complement rather than replace human relationships (Skjuve et al.; Xie et al.; Natale and Depounti). By adopting this approach, we are better placed to harness the benefits of AI while safeguarding that our technologically augmented future remains fundamentally human.
References
Brännström, Andreas, Johan Wester, and Javier C. Nieves. "A Formal Understanding of Computational Empathy in Interactive Agents." Cognitive Systems Research 85 (2024): 101203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2023.101203.
Brooks, Rachael. "Replika: I Tried the Replika AI Companion and Can See Why Users Are Falling Hard. The App Raises Serious Ethical Questions." The Conversation, 2023. <https://www.theconversation.com/i-tried-the-replika-ai-companion-and-can-see-why-users-are-falling-hard-the-app-raises-serious-ethical-questions-200257>.
Cacioppo, John T., and Stephanie Cacioppo. "Social Relationships and Health: The Toxic Effects of Perceived Social Isolation." Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8.2 (2014): 58–72.
Chamberlain, William. The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed: Computer Prose and Poetry. Warner Books, 1984.
Colby, Kenneth M. Artificial Paranoia: A Computer Simulation of Paranoid Processes. Pergamon Press, 1975.
Darling, Kate. "Who's Johnny? Anthropomorphic Framing in Human-Robot Interaction, Integration, and Policy." Robot Ethics 2.0: From Autonomous Cars to Artificial Intelligence, eds. P. Lin, K. Abney, and R. Jenkins. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2017. 173-188.
Dale, Robert. "The Return of the Chatbots." Natural Language Engineering 22.5 (2016): 811–817.
Farmer, John, Timothy De Cotta, Christina Hartung, et al. Social Connection 101. Social Innovation Research Institute, 2021.
Farmer, John, Clare Rowe, Timothy De Cotta, and Mia Savic. Social Connection Guide for Activity Planning. Swinburne University of Technology, 2024.
Ferrucci, David, et al. "Building Watson: An Overview of the DeepQA Project." AI Magazine 31.3 (2010): 59-79.
Fiske, Amy, Peter Henningsen, and Alena Buyx. "Your Robot Therapist Will See You Now: Ethical Implications of Embodied Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Psychotherapy." Journal of Medical Internet Research 21.5 (2019): e13216.
Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Harvard UP, 1982.
Guingrich, Ryan, and Michael S. Graziano. "Chatbots as Social Companions: How People Perceive Consciousness, Human Likeness, and Social Health Benefits in Machines." arXiv abs/2311.10599 (2023).
Haski-Leventhal, Debbie, and David Bargal. "The Volunteer Stages and Transitions Model: Organizational Socialization of Volunteers." Human Relations 61.1 (2008): 67–102.
Li, Ying, et al. "Understanding Users' Continued Engagement with Empathetic Chatbots." Computers in Human Behavior 140 (2023): 107544.
Luxton, David D. "Recommendations for the Ethical Use and Design of Artificial Intelligent Care Providers." Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 62.1 (2014): 1-10.
Merrill, Katherine, Jihye Kim, and Courtney Collins. "AI Companions for Lonely Individuals and the Role of Social Presence." Communication Research Reports 39 (2022): 93–103.
Murthy, Vivek. "Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023. <https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-social-connection-advisory.pdf>.
Natale, Simone, and Isabella Depounti. "Artificial Sociality." Human-Machine Communication 7 (2024): 83–98. <https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.7.5>.
Noddings, Nel. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. U of California P, 1984.
Owen, Trevor. Host. "Can AI Companions Cure Loneliness?" Machines like Us 2 (7 May 2024). <https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/machines-like-us/id1484910273?i=1000654797003>.
Pentina, Irina, Timothy Hancock, and Tao Xie. "Exploring Relationship Development with Social Chatbots: A Mixed-Method Study of Replika." Computers in Human Behavior 140 (2023): 107600. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107600>.
Schumaker, Robert P., et al. "An Evaluation of the Chat and Knowledge Delivery Components of a Low-Level Dialog System: The AZ-ALICE Experiment." Decision Support Systems 42.4 (2007): 2236–2246.
Siemon, Dominic, Tobias Strohmann, Bijan Khosrawi-Rad, Ton de Vreede, Edris Elshan, and Michael Meyer. "Why Do We Turn to Virtual Companions? A Text Mining Analysis of Replika Reviews." Americas Conference on Information Systems, 2022.
Skjuve, Marita, Asbjørn Følstad, Kristin I. Fostervold, and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. "My Chatbot Companion—A Study of Human-Chatbot Relationships." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 149 (2021): 102601.
Ta, Vivian, et al. "User Experiences of Social Support from Companion Chatbots in Everyday Contexts: Thematic Analysis." Journal of Medical Internet Research 22.3 (2020): e16235.
Turing, Alan M. "Computing Machinery and Intelligence." Parsing the Turing Test, eds. R. Epstein, G. Roberts, and G. Beber. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009. 23-65. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6710-5_3>.
Walsh, Toby. Faking It: Artificial Intelligence in a Human World. History Press, 2023.
Wang, Qian, Shuyuan Jing, and Ashok K. Goel. "Co-Designing AI Agents to Support Social Connectedness among Online Learners: Functionalities, Social Characteristics, and Ethical Challenges." Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 2022.
Weizenbaum, Joseph. "ELIZA—A Computer Program for the Study of Natural Language Communication between Man and Machine." Communications of the ACM 9.1 (1966): 36–45. <https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168>.
Zhou, Li, Jianfeng Gao, Di Li, and Harry-Yan Shum. "The Design and Implementation of XiaoIce, an Empathetic Social Chatbot." Computational Linguistics 46.1 (2020): 53–93. <https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00368>.