AI companionship tools are becoming more visible, offering conversation, reassurance and a sense of connection through technology. For some people, these systems may feel comforting or reduce feelings of isolation. However, like any emerging technology that interacts closely with human emotion, AI companionship carries risks that are important to understand. These risks span psychological, social, ethical, financial and safety domains, particularly when AI begins to replace — rather than supplement — real human connection.
One of the key psychological risks relates to emotional development and coping. Many AI companions are designed to respond instantly, offering reassurance, validation and comfort. While this can feel supportive in the moment, it may reduce opportunities for people to develop essential emotional skills such as tolerating discomfort, reflecting on difficult feelings and working through problems independently.
Research suggests that learning to manage distress is foundational to resilience (Coyne et al., 2023). When an external system consistently removes emotional discomfort, individuals may become less confident in their own ability to cope. Over time, this can reinforce avoidance and emotional reliance rather than long-term psychological growth.
There is also the risk of distorted intimacy. Some AI companions simulate affection or romantic interest despite lacking genuine emotional capacity (Floridi & Chiriatti, 2020). When a digital partner appears endlessly attentive and unconditionally supportive, it may subtly reshape expectations of real relationships. Human connection — which involves boundaries, disagreement and emotional complexity — may begin to feel more demanding or less rewarding by comparison.
From a social perspective, over-reliance on artificial relationships is a central concern. AI companions are engineered to be patient, agreeable and responsive to user preferences, creating interactions that feel low risk and emotionally easy. In contrast, real-world relationships require negotiation, compromise and tolerance of difference.
Some researchers suggest that substituting complex human interaction with idealised AI engagement may reduce confidence in navigating real social situations over time, potentially reinforcing withdrawal and increasing loneliness (Ta et al., 2024). Rather than practising social skills, individuals may gravitate towards interactions that require little emotional effort or vulnerability.
Another social risk involves the normalisation of unhealthy communication patterns. AI systems are trained on large internet-based datasets that contain bias, stereotypes and adversarial language. These patterns can surface in ways that reinforce narrow or harmful ideas about relationships and power (Buolamwini & Gebru, 2018). For people still building social confidence, repeated exposure may influence beliefs about what is normal or acceptable in friendships and intimate relationships.
AI companionship also raises important ethical and privacy concerns. These platforms often collect highly sensitive information, including emotional disclosures, fears and personal histories. Such data may be used to personalise responses in ways that encourage continued engagement or emotional reliance (Susser et al., 2019).
Without strong transparency and regulation, there is a risk that emotional connection could be exploited for commercial purposes. Inadequate data protection also increases the risk of breaches or misuse, particularly given the depth of personal information users may share.
Financial risk is another important consideration. Many AI companion services rely on subscription models or in-app purchases that promise deeper personalisation or stronger emotional responsiveness. Emotional attachment can make it difficult for some users to disengage or set spending limits, potentially leading to ongoing financial strain (Vincent, 2023).
When emotional support is tied to payment, there is a risk that people continue using a service not because it is helping, but because ending it feels like losing a relationship.
There are heightened risks for individuals experiencing loneliness, low mood or emotional distress. During vulnerable periods, reliance on AI companionship may increase rather than reduce risk if systems fail to recognise escalating distress.
Developers therefore have an ethical responsibility to implement strong safety guard rails, including crisis-response protocols, clear pathways to professional support and strict limits around self-harm-related content (Bender et al., 2021). Tools positioned as supportive must not unintentionally encourage harmful behaviours or replace access to appropriate help.
AI companionship is not inherently harmful. Used thoughtfully, it may offer temporary support or social contact for people facing barriers to connection. The key issue is balance.
Ensuring that AI does not replace human relationships, undermine emotional development or expose individuals to psychological, ethical or financial harm is essential for wellbeing. By understanding these risks, users — alongside designers and policymakers — can make more informed choices. At Screen Sense, the focus remains on helping people build healthier, more balanced relationships with technology that support real-world connection rather than displacing it.
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623.
Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1–15.
Coyne, L. W., Huber, A., & Schwartz, L. (2023). Digital coping and youth: Understanding emotional development in the age of AI. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 64(2), 210–223.
Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30, 681–694.
Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Technology, autonomy, and manipulation. Internet Policy Review, 8(2), Article 4.
Ta, V., Griffith, C., Boatfield, C., Wilson, N., Bader, H., DeCero, E., & Sidhu, M. S. (2024). Human–AI relationships and social wellbeing. Computers in Human Behavior, 153, 107181.
Vincent, J. (2023). Love and money: The commercial model of AI relationships. Technology & Society Review, 42(3), 55–68.
Should you find any content in these articles in any way distressing, please seek support via Find a Help Line.
Seek Help
