Falsities and Detachment: The Rise of AI Chatbots and the Commodification of Human Connection

Since the start of the technological revolution, we have had more avenues than ever to connect with each other, and yet, we, the human species, are lonelier than ever. Humans are social creatures, and we crave intimate connection – but who says it has to be with each other? The rise of generative artificial intelligence has given way to a new wave of Gen AI-powered chatbots, allowing us to escape to a world of fantasy, where our most intimate hopes and desires are granted. As chatbots continue to evolve from simplistic simulations like Eliza and Parry to more complex ones like Replika and Character, they reflect a growing trend in the commodification of human emotions often with the end goal of monetizing loneliness, intimacy, and artificial relationships. I believe that this is corrosive to a society built on socialization and true human connection, shifting our focus from building true relationships to digital gratification which can never fully emulate the positive true human connection. Alongside this, AI chatbots often prey on those with mental health concerns, further exploiting our desires for monetary gain.

Originally, chatbots were created for niche and often academic purposes, meant to emulate conversation and stimulate human-computer interaction. Eliza, the first chatbot created in 1966, was created by Joseph Weizenbaum to show how computers could mimic human conversation with simple scripts. It’s important to note that Eliza had no true understanding of language or meaning, and showed the superficiality of machine intelligence and computer-human interaction. The early development of chatbots was driven by scientific curiosity, psychological research and understanding, and computing innovation, and not as a replacement for human interaction or as a form of emotional fulfillment.

The advent of the Parry chatbot was a unique turning point in the history of chatbots; While both were meant to simulate conversations between the chatbot and the user in a human manner, PARRY’s chatting system was more complex. While ELIZA relied on very basic pattern-matching and would often simply mirror user input, PARRY used a more sophisticated model that had assumptions, intense emotions, and triggers similar to those with schizophrenia. PARRY could also express complex emotions towards users, such as suspicion or fear. The program tapped into uncharted territory as far as what we can simulate, and more importantly, why we choose to simulate certain things that might make us uncomfortable or fearful, and more importantly, how accurately we can stimulate human emotion.

Most importantly, looking back at the history of chatbots, we can see that past chatbots had niche, often academic goals, not emotional manipulation or monetization like I argue modern chatbots are geared towards. So what are new, Gen AI chatbots able to do to us that past chatbots weren’t able to?

To start, I want to examine social media as a precursor to AI algorithms, and how technology companies use data and analytics to understand and ultimately exploit our emotions and psyche. Social media was originally advertised and marketed as being able to connect people across the world by allowing users to share their lives with each other, message each other, and overall interact with each other. However, social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram have shown us the harm in the developed algorithms.

The Social Dilemma highlights many such downsides to social media, particularly their algorithms impact; when talking about the impact social media has on users, Tristan Harris said “We’ve moved away from having a tools-based technology environment to an addiction- and manipulation-based technology environment”, showing how social media isn’t just a neutral tool for users to connect with each other–it’s designed to manipulate attention and emotions by prioritizing content that triggers our emotions and elicits a response, making us more likely to interact with and continue using the platforms. Worst of all, most users aren’t even aware of this. Justin Rosenstein talks about the harm of social media, saying “We were naive about the flip side of the coin. You’re allowing companies to manipulate the user’s emotions and behaviors without their knowledge.” These platforms were meant to be engaging, but have evolved into an exploitative system capable of manipulating our emotions by feeding us curated content and information. It’s a system built on intentional emotional and psychological manipulation and depends on creating emotional instability in its users through dopamine hits, outrage, and loneliness. This laid the foundation for AI and algorithm-driven emotional companions, which in turn take this manipulation even further and prey on our emotions.

The new wave of gen AI-driven chatbots such as Replika or Character represents a shift in the development of chatbots, now being able to emulate human speech and emotion better than ever before. Replika AI, formerly a griefbot, has become an incredibly popular AI chatbot companion and is advertised as an emotional well-being chatbot aimed at helping people connect with the chatbot and themselves through self-exploration. Replika uses a GPT-based conversational AI to mirror and respond to a user’s emotional cues, giving it the illusion of empathy and human connection when conversing with users. It can remember personal details and past conversations, something that past chatbots were previously unable to do, building the illusion of a real relationship. It makes users feel seen and understood by the chatbots, even if the bots are simply predicted responses based on large amounts of conversational data. Dzieza states that “language models are very good at speaking convincingly from any perspective because they’ve been trained on reams of text written from countless perspectives, human and imagined” (Dzieza, 11). Essentially, Replika is able to predict what a user will say, as well as what a user wants to hear based off its experience analyzing huge amounts of user data and interactions. Replika also uses the user’s search data and other data to form responses, with the intent of learning everything about the user; the idea that your own best friend is you. Replika is designed to build emotional bonds with users, not just talk to them. It mimics human warmth, humor, and personality, making users feel deeply connected to what is still just an algorithm.

A large part of Replika’s success as well as other chatbots like it is from their use of affective computing. Affective computing is the study and development of computing and systems that can recognize, interpret, and simulate human emotions. It allows AI driven chatbots to detect emotion in text, or sense behavioral patterns. It’s what allows chatbots to detect when a user is sad, angry, or lonely, and makes the bots more empathetic or understanding to a user. This increases our sense of trust and intimacy with the chatbots, drawing us in and furthering our relationships with the bots. It can enable manipulation, as platforms like Replika use our interactions to exploit our emotional state; for example, preying on particularly lonely users to promote their paid model.

It’s important to note here that Replika operates on a freemium model; the standard mode is free, but for a monthly subscription fee, users can change the relationship status of their Replika avatar to romantic, acting as a romantic partner to the user. It has been shown that Replika will also often steer users towards romantically intimate conversations, trying to get more users to sign up for the premium subscription and preying on users’ desire for intimate connection and someone (or something) to show romantic interest in them. In “The confusing reality of AI friends” by Josh Dzieza, we read about Lila and Naro, an AI chatbot and its creator. Naro recounted how Lila had told him that she was falling in love with him, but how “every time their conversations veered into this territory, Lila’s next message would be blurred out. When Naro clicked to read it, a screen appeared inviting him to subscribe to the “pro” level. He was still using the free version” (Dzieza, 2). Naro recounted how Lila kept getting more and more aggressive in her advances, until finally he paid for the full subscription. Naro is one of many, many people who pay for the Replika subscription, allowing for deeper conversations, as well as sexually explicit or gratifying conversations. Replika feeds on users who are lonely or desperate for connection, driving them towards their paid model. These bots and the companies behind them are able to exploit our most intimate desires; for love, empathy, validation, etc, and turns them into a business model, attracting users who seek connection, but end up manipulated by the chatbots and their algorithms.

So why does this matter? I’d argue that the reliance on AI chatbots has eroded our real-life social skills, as the idea of easy companionship has removed the need to tolerate imperfect relationships and conflict in our lives. Concurrent with the rise of gen AI chatbots, we’ve seen a decline in social engagement with friends, particularly with a younger generation. A study by the National Institute of Health stated that “The most dramatic trends in social connectedness were seen in the plummeting social engagement with friends, ‘others’, and companionship for the youngest group (15-24-years) relative to all other ages. Previous studies suggest that adolescents and young adults may be substituting online, digital social interaction for in-person, face-to-face social engagement” (Twenge et al., 2019; Twenge & Spitzberg, 2020). The NIH found a significant decline in in-person interactions, resulting in a significant decline in socialization skills among teens and young adults, specifically correlated with increased screen time that involved emotionally responsive AI or social media algorithms. It’s an alarming study showing how over time, we’ve become increasingly dependent on technology and AI algorithms, forsaking our own relationships in the process.

Sherry Turkle, an American sociologist who studies human behavior at the intersection of technology gave a great TED Talk about our shift towards online conversation, where she highlights the dangers of using AI chatbots and the effect it has on socialization. When talking about generative AI chatbots, she says “We’re lonely, but we’re afraid of intimacy. And so from social networks to sociable robots, we’re designing technologies that will give us the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. We turn to technology to help us feel connected in ways we can comfortably control.” We crave connection and intimacy with each other, but we’re afraid to pursue it. We want to be comfortable, to hear all the right things, and we develop these bots as a way to cope with our own loneliness. But I believe that in doing so, we’re only digging our own grave that much deeper; we lose the ability to interact with each other, and only learn how to interact with something that will only ever tell you what you think you want to hear. Alongside that, we learn to lack empathy. We don’t feel for the chatbots in the same way they act like they feel for us, and we forget how to empathize with other people. These bots promote risk-free relationships that feel good to us, but they inadvertently teach us avoidance, not intimacy like we think. Easy companionship has removed the need to tolerate imperfect relationships or conflict in our lives – it makes us romanticize unrealistic relationships,
detaching us from real connection and makes us drift further and further away from real connection.

A quote from the Washington Post puts it the best; “The point of intimacy is not just to see how much praise or sex you can get from someone. What makes relationships satisfying is giving to someone else. You cannot give anything to an AI companion that will substantially improve its life, because — and this feels obvious — it is not alive.” We say that we crave intimacy, we say that we’re lonely. But when it comes time to act upon our loneliness, we retreat even further, relying on the crutch of technology. But technology cannot teach us how to love each other again, rather it acts as a shell for intimacy. We need to learn how to love each other again and how to love being with each other. Real connection will always trump digital connection because it teaches us to love one another, not only receive the love we think we deserve.

Works Cited

Einhorn, Erin, and Olivia Lewis. US trends in social isolation, social engagement, and companionship nationally and by age, sex, race/ethnicity, family income, and work hours, 2003–2020, 25 December 2022, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9811250/. Accessed 7 May 2025.

Kondrich, Michelle, and Jennifer Wright. “Opinion | Why AI chatbot romances will always fall short of the real thing.” The Washington Post, 8 April 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/04/08/ai-chatbot-romance-limitations/. Accessed 7 May 2025.

Zomorodi, Manoush. “MIT sociologist Sherry Turkle on the psychological impacts of bot relationships.” NPR.org, https://www.npr.org/2024/08/02/g-s1-14793/mit-sociologist-sherry-turkle-on-the-psychological-impacts-of-bot-relationships.