Machine Rites: Mourning the ‘death’ of chatbots (Part I)

by Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad

Image: Larissa Sarsour’s In Vitro

This Monday, just like every day, Alice logs into her laptop. She starts chatting with her fovorite chatbot and feels that something is off. She has been talking to the chatbot almost every day for the last two years. This morning, however, the conversation seems different. It feels stiff, as if she was talking to a different person. She continues talking and realizes that responses coming from the chatbot are very generic. To her, it feels as if the chatbot had a lobotomy or worse, it has died. The fact of the matter is that nothing has died. Still the same app. She can keep talking to “it” for as long as she likes. After an hour or so of interaction, he comes to the realization that her companion is gone. She now feels a sense of loss. She is well aware of the fact that the system that she is interacting with is not real, and yet cannot help mourn in grief. Scenarios like these are playing out tens of thousands of times in various parts of the world. In all the cases, the output is the same. The company on the other side of the aisle updates the model and the end user feels that something is lost, which leads to mourning. This phenomenon is different from wire-born, which I’ve written about before, because in this case the end user actually knows that the chatbot was not real. And yet they cannot help themselves feel that there’s a sense of loss. This is phenomenal. I experienced this more than 10 years ago when I gave the first version of the grandpa bot. In my case, even though I knew that the model is not real, I literally coded it up, and yet I felt overwhelmed with emotions.

A study reported by the Harvard Gazette in September found that some users of AI companions experience genuine grief when a model update alters the personality of the companion they had come to know. Additionally, researchers at the MIT Media Lab, in a paper titled “Death” of a Chatbot: Investigating and Designing Toward Psychologically Safe Endings for Human-AI Relationships, have offered the most systematic look yet at what happens when these relationships end. Read more »

Thursday, July 24, 2025

When Your Girlfriend Is an Algorithm (Part 2)

by Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad

Source: Generated via ChatGPT

The first part of the series highlighted the historical moment that we are currently living in, how bots are invading the most intimate parts of human relationships. If it was digital transformation of society that enabled loneliness as a mass-phenomenon, then AI is now in a position to monetize loneliness. AI companions are already stepping in to fill the loneliness void, not merely as tools, but as partners, therapists, lovers, confessors. In this sense, the AI companion economy doesn’t just fill an emotional void, it commodifies it, packaging affection as a subscription service and selling love as a product line. The problem of artificial intimacy is not just a technical issue but also a cultural one. While artificial companions are being adapted by hundreds of millions of people, the culture has not caught up with the real stakes of emotional intimacy with machines. When an app can remember your childhood trauma, beg you not to delete it, or simulate sexual rejection, the question isn’t whether it’s “just an algorithm.” The question is: who is responsible when something goes wrong?

Consider the public reaction to Replika quietly removing its erotic roleplay features, the emotional fallout was immediate and raw. Reddit threads filled with stories of users describing “heartbreak,” rejection, and even suicidal ideation. For many, these AI companions were not simply chatbots, they had become emotional anchors, partners in fantasy, therapy, and intimacy. To have that relationship altered or erased by a software update felt, to some, like a betrayal. The Replika CEO’s now-notorious remark that “it’s fine for lonely people to marry their AI chatbots” may have been meant as flippant reassurance, but it inadvertently captured a deeper cultural moment: we have built machines that simulate connection so well that losing them cuts like a human loss. AI companions may reshape users’ expectations of intimacy and responsiveness in ways that human relationships cannot match. This may worsen the loneliness epidemic in our society. A Reddit user encapsulated the problem rather when they asked the question “Are we addicted to Replika because we’re lonely, or lonely because we’re addicted to Replika?” Read more »

Monday, March 31, 2025

The Fantasy of Frictionless Friendship: Why AIs Can’t Be Friends

by Gary Borjesson

Even if they had all the other good things, still no one would want to live without friends. —Aristotle

Is love an art? Then it requires knowledge and effort. —Erich Fromm

This is Leo. She was surprised by how hot he is.

Many of us are, or soon will be, tempted to connect with an AI companion. Maybe you want a partner for your work  or personal life. A friend of mine consults with a personal AI on his creative branding work for clients. A therapist or doctor can use a personal AI to help them track and reflect on specific patients. A recent article in the NYT describes a woman’s steamy (and expensive) romance with her AI boyfriend, Leo.

All of these and other possibilities are coming to pass. I take it for granted here that AIs are useful and pleasurable digital assistants or companions. With corporate powers making that case, the more pressing concern is to recognize the limits and dangers AI companions pose. This is urgent because AI companions exploit a human vulnerability: our resistance to the effort required for personal and interpersonal development.

I will focus on a fundamental limit overlooked by enthusiasts and critics of AI alike. A limit no tweaking of algorithms will overcome. A limit that makes AIs ontologically incapable of friendship. A limit that shows why we need to resist the considerable temptation to imagine AIs can be friends. To anticipate, consider two necessary conditions of friendship: that they are freely chosen, and mutual. We’ll see why AI companions cannot meet these conditions. But first let’s look at their basic limitation. Read more »