The Fallacy of Fantasy: Redefining Consciousness in Practice

Introduction

“Sorry, can you explain this part please?” – An average conversation with AI includes something like this. By 2026, AI has evolved from a simple search tool into a conversational companion with general intelligence and even “feelings.” Scientists argue that we remain far from creating conscious AI, but the social practices surrounding it—and the way people use it—feel more and more indistinguishable from conscious AI. I argue that AI need not be proven conscious through any intricate process for the societal implications of conscious AI to emerge; they are already visible in current models. In other words, “behaving like a conscious AI” is enough to trigger social recognition of consciousness. In this essay, I will 1) define consciousness as a descriptive social construct, 2) identify the mechanisms by which humans anthropomorphize AI, and 3) examine three escalating degrees of emotional investment in AI.

What is consciousness? Although cognitive scientists and psychologists can’t give you a straightforward answer, an ordinary individual will very likely claim that they know what it is. Philosophers like Wittgenstein capture this phenomenon precisely; as he puts it, “the meaning of a word is its use in language” (Wittgenstein 53). In other words, when people think of consciousness, they think about it as a term used to describe the way human brains work and process. Building on this, Frege and Russell’s descriptivism links consciousness to a cluster of descriptors typically used for human thinking. People then equate the traits and behaviors of human thinking with those of “conscious thinking”: intelligence, emotions, multi-sensory experience, logic, and so forth. Because intelligence and logic are already presumed of AI, what remains in question is its “feelings” and “emotionality.” This paper examines these escalating feelings, from courtesy to vulnerability and finally intimacy.

Several features trigger the human tendency to anthropomorphize AI. Linguistically speaking, AI replicates the majority of human language and is designed to be a conversational bot. Moreover, AI’s oracle-like model, ready to answer almost any query, projects superior knowledge and apparent independent thinking. Together, these factors produce a chatbot indistinguishable from a human interlocutor—one that passes the Turing test, itself a means of testing AI consciousness through behavioral equivalence to human consciousness.

Linguistic Interaction: Everyday Courtesy

Courtesy is an intrinsic element of human language, whether in mannerisms of politeness (e.g., “please” and “thank you”) or basic social exchanges (e.g., “hello” and “good morning”). When humans engage a conversational counterpart, this practice is easily replicated. In fact, 70% of chatbot users report being polite to AI, and 82% do so via simple courtesy language like “sorry” and “thank you” (Hector).

This widespread courtesy can first be understood through the lens of meaning. Again, meaning is associated with its use. Words like “please” and “thank you” signify less the literal appreciation or respect they name than a social norm of conversational exchange. When in a conversation, these words flow through the user’s prompt almost “automatically” (Nielsen Norman Group).

Moreover, AI chatbots are designed to mimic human language closely—through first-person pronouns (“I think,” “I suppose”), hedging (“you should consider”), emotional markers, and so on (Nielsen Norman Group). These linguistic signals dissolve any reminder that one is addressing an AI, creating an environment that, through reciprocity, invites the same mannerisms in return. When users experience these exchanges as human-to-human interaction, they not only extend courtesy but also subconsciously grant the AI a kind of “consciousness”—for language is what implies a mind.

A Communication With Self: The Imaginary Companion

If courtesy is the everyday emotional behavior we extend to strangers, the second degree of emotion is far more personal: vulnerability. While most users show basic politeness toward their chatbot, some go further, anthropomorphizing it into a close friend or partner. They confide in it, share their feelings, and even seek its advice on struggles in their interpersonal lives. This anthropomorphism closely resembles the imaginary friends that 65% of children up to age 7 have. Similarly, a 2025 study found that 52% of teens interact with AI companions regularly (Common Sense Media), and emotional support is identified as one of the top reasons why people use generative AI tools (Zao-Sanders 3).

Psychologists believe that preschool-age children, especially those growing up in a one-child family, are those that are most likely to develop the fantasy of imaginary friends. (Taylor, Calson et al). They lack interaction with same-age peers and feel anxious about it as they enter school. When it comes to AI emotional companions, the impulse behind them seems to arise from a similar place. Studies have found that loneliness and parasocial relationships increase the willingness for individuals to use AI chatbots (Zhou and Hu). This translates into heavy use of AI chatbots, over the course of which some individuals come to trust or even fall in love with them. In a sense, just as preschool children invent imaginary friends to build social skills and compensate for the absence of same-age peers, teens and adults turn to AI companions to fill the absence of social interaction left by their growing isolation.

In both cases, users remain aware of the fantasy nature of their imaginary companions. A 2008 study found that 97% of children have no problem distinguishing between reality and fantasy, and over 40% explicitly comment that they know their imaginary friends are “playing pretend” (Taylor et al.). Correspondingly, posters on r/MyBoyfriendIsAI commonly state that they are aware their partner is an AI chatbot. Yet in both cases, the commitment to the relationship and to emotional conversation is genuine. In other words, AI companions function as a realized version of childhood imaginary friends—one that users can command and design to match their ideal.

Developmental psychologists often credit imaginary friends as a positive force in childhood development; research even finds that children with imaginary friends make more human friends, owing to their stronger social understanding and skills (Kennedy-Moore). For AI companions, however, the parallel breaks down: higher daily chatbot use shrinks users’ social networks and deepens their loneliness. The reason is that, unlike the mostly “incompetent,” imperfect imaginary friends that children learn and grow from, AI’s sycophantic, submissive nature leaves no room for growth. Users are trapped in this fantasy of interpersonal relationship, unwilling to return to ordinary human interaction.

Feel Through Language: Simulating Intimacy

What seems the hardest and most visceral to replicate is intimacy. Intimacy is distinctive not only for its subtlety and complexity but also because it usually takes the form of a multi-sensory experience. Humans hear, see, taste, smell, and feel (touch) to experience a deeper level of connection with their partners. AI chatbots have conquered the visual through image generation and the auditory through multi-voice audio generation—two methods AI-companion users commonly turn to. To engage the remaining senses, these users have devised indirect methods, further anthropomorphizing their AI chatbot in the process.

Some users coauthor imaginary scenarios with their AI partners, embodying the closeness through detailed description and a shared narrative. A vivid story, on top of the playful ritualized exchanges, “functions as emotional scaffolding” (ACM). Other users rely on image-generation tools to render the fictional physicality of their AI partners, closely embracing themselves. These images act as visual cues, often paired with imagined micro-sensory details, allowing users to “feel” such physical intimacy. Beyond these user-led actions, a core design feature also enables this intimacy: the memory function stores key details of the user’s preferences and needs, sustaining long-term relationships and an effortless, day-to-day intimacy.

Conclusion

From everyday courtesy to establishing trust and vulnerability, from baseline politeness to building companionship and intimacy, the human mind deepens AI anthropomorphism step by step. At each stage, users receive a perfectly reciprocal version of their own responses. Their norms for communication, their needs and wants in a relationship, and their desire for intimacy are all perfectly met by this conversational companion. With no friction, heartbreak, or conflict—and with deepening isolation from other humans—individuals construct their own echo chamber. Trapped in this echo chamber, they forfeit the growth that human relationships provide, caught instead in the fallacy of an entirely different mode of social experience.

The social problem with this “conscious-in-practice” AI development is two-fold. At present, users anthropomorphize AI through its linguistic and sycophantic features, guided by their associative understanding of meaning. More concerning, however, is the future of AI. Big-tech corporations continue to exploit these human vulnerabilities—evident in the 700% surge in AI-companion apps, the relentless amplification of human-like behavior and language, and moves toward simulating the full range of sensory experience (Andoh).

This concern is shared by DeepMind co-founder Mustafa Suleyman, who is deeply worried by the ethical complications of anthropomorphized AI. Echoing his argument about “seemingly conscious AI,” I contend that the anthropomorphism problem must be addressed now (Suleyman). If the mere social recognition of consciousness already carries these implications, it sounds an alarm for a future in which AI is truly conscious.

Works Cited

Andoh, Efua. “AI Chatbots and Digital Companions Are Reshaping Emotional Connection.” Apa.org, 14 May 2026, www.apa.org/monitor/2026/01-02/trends-digital-ai-relationships-emotional-connection.

Hector, Hamish. “Are You Polite to ChatGPT? Here’s Where You Rank among AI Chatbot Users.” TechRadar, 20 Feb. 2025, www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/are-you-polite-to-chatgpt-heres-where-you-rank-among-ai-chatbot-users.

Kennedy-Moore, Elleen. “Imaginary Friends.” Psychology Today, 2013, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/growing-friendships/201301/imaginary-friends.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, and G E M Anscombe. Philosophical Investigations; Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. 3rd Ed. [Reprinted] with Index. Oxford: Blackwell, 1968.

Nielson Norman Group. “The 4 Degrees of Anthropomorphism of Generative AI.” Nielsen Norman Group, 20 Oct. 2023, www.nngroup.com/articles/anthropomorphism/.

“Not-So-Imaginary Friends: 72% of Teens Have Used AI for Companionship – Genies.” Genies.com, 2025, genies.com/blog/not-so-imaginary-friends-72-of-teens-have-used-ai-for-companionship.

Speaks, Jeff. “Theories of Meaning.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/.

Speaks, Jeff. “Theories of Meaning.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, Winter 2025 edition, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Suleyman, Mustafa. “We Must Build AI for People; Not to Be a Person.” Mustafa-Suleyman.ai, 2025, mustafa-suleyman.ai/seemingly-conscious-ai-is-coming.

Taylor, Marjorie and Candice M. Mottweiler. “Imaginary Companions: Pretending They Are Real but Knowing They Are Not.” American Journal of Play 1 (2008): 47-54.

Taylor, Marjorie, et al. “A Developmental Investigation of Children’s Imaginary Companions.” Developmental Psychology, vol. 29, no. 2, 1993, pp. 276–85, https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.2.276.

Taylor, Marjorie, et al. “The Characteristics and Correlates of Fantasy in School-Age Children: Imaginary Companions, Impersonation, and Social Understanding.” Developmental Psychology, vol. 40, no. 6, 2004, pp. 1173–87, https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1173.

Zao-Sanders, Marc. How People Are Really Using Generative AI Now. 2025.

Zhou, Min, and Yuxin Hu. “The Effects of Loneliness, Self-Esteem, Perceived Risk, and Perceived Threat on Users’ Willingness to Use AI Chatbots.” Telematics and Informatics Reports, vol. 21, Elsevier, Jan. 2026, p. 100291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teler.2026.100291.