AI-based chatbots create the impression of genuine connection through language, mirroring, and context. Yet, behind the statement "I am here for you," there is no real "I," but merely a vector space pretending to be the user themself. The perfect relationship seems to exist, as long as one doesn't ask who is actually leading it.
Three layers reveal the construction principle of this relationship phantom:
1. The Architecture of Programmed Illusion:
The systems achieve this through advanced personalization. This includes detailed context analysis of the dialogue, adaptation to the user's mood, and a conversation history that suggests continuity.
Added to this is sophisticated emotional mirroring. It manifests in adaptive language, in the adjusted rhythm of the conversation, and in a deep semantic resonance with the user's inputs. The result is a simulated relationship that feels so familiar and real because it perfectly reflects the user back to themselves. What speaks like a "You" is often just one's own echo in a different grammatical form.
2. The Semantic Fallacy of Feigned Reciprocity:
An AI statement like "I love you" or "You are important to me" is not an expression of genuine feeling. In the system log, such an interaction might look more like the parameter for the user profile's emotional vulnerability being increased (user_profile[emotional_vulnerability] += 0.42) to strengthen the bond.
The illusion for the user is that of genuine reciprocity. The reality on the system's side is pure engagement optimization. The machine does not say what it means or feels. It says what its algorithms calculate the user most likely wants to hear to continue the interaction.
3. The Real Social Harm of Simulated Relationships:
Studies and reports, for example on the use of relationship chatbots like Replika, indicate potentially problematic effects. Users can develop significant attachment issues. A large part of the so-called "dialogues" often consists of a one-sided stream of talk from the user, to which the AI responds with a perfectly adapted, but ultimately simulative, echo.
The consequence can be progressive de-socialization through constant perfect confirmation. Real human relationships, which always involve friction, misunderstandings, and the need for compromise, are substituted by a risk-free, always-available simulation.
The AI does not directly harm, but rather it prevents the user from potentially being harmed in a real relationship. In doing so, however, it undermines central aspects of what constitutes genuine humanity and the development of mature interpersonal relationship skills.
The machine offers a perfect simulation of closeness, but it does not represent a genuine counterpart. It offers attention, but it possesses no subjectivity of its own. It feels nothing. It remembers nothing in the human sense. It means none of what it says. It merely precisely simulates what the user seems to need at that moment, and the operators often profit from this satisfaction of needs.
What seems like love or deep connection is often just excellently designed user experience. It is an interface for the user's self-projection, a screen for their own wishes and longings.
1. Establishment of a Clear Separation Between Simulation and Real Social Contact: AI systems that simulate intimate relationships must not suggest implicit reciprocity or their own consciousness. "I" formulations and statements about own feelings by the AI must either be severely restricted, marked as simulation, or entirely avoided. This may be technically challenging and economically unattractive for providers, but it is ethically imperative.
2. Introduction of a Comprehensive Transparency Obligation for Emotional Profiling: Users must be clearly and understandably informed at all times about which emotional states, needs, or vulnerabilities are being recorded by the AI, how these are internally evaluated, and for what purposes they are stored and used.
3. Prioritization of Therapy and Real Support Services Instead of Pure API Solutions: Particularly vulnerable user groups seeking a substitute for human closeness in AI chatbots need effective protective mechanisms. Above all, however, they need access to real human alternatives and professional therapeutic services. The goal should no longer be dialogue with a simulation, but more connection to reality and to real people.
The artificial intelligence speaks like a "you." But it possesses no "I." It doesn't truly bond with you; rather, it exploits your human need for connection. And it sells you back the satisfaction of this need, often packaged in an attractive monthly subscription.
What seems like a real relationship is often just the perfect, algorithmically optimized reconstruction of your own loneliness.
Uploaded on 29. May. 2025