AI Relationships

Three things to keep in mind before you read:

1. We’re not actually focusing on AI dating or stuff.
2. You might hold very opposing views.
3. I've not proof-read this yet, so beware of minor spelling mistakes (I will eventually update if there are any)

Here’s some prior knowledge:
AI relationships. We’ve probably all heard about it. People treat AI as respectable teachers, use these chatbots to vent, treat them like friends, and even date them. There’s been countless discussions and debates on whether these relationships are GOOD or BAD. Do they help with loneliness, or just make people more attached? Are they even healthy?

But I’m not going to be doing that in this essay, because we’re diving deeper. Specifically where to? Well… I’m not so sure myself, you’ll just have to find out.

PART 1: Define Relationship
A relationship, in its most simple terms, is just a connection people have. Specifically, we’re talking about a mutual bond between two people who share time, emotions, and influence with each other. But already there can be many disagreements. In reality, relationships vary greatly in symmetry, intention, depth, and equality. We see families, friends, teacher-student, even strangers who interact. They are all called a “relationship”, despite the level and bonds being drastically different. Therefore, I believe what ultimately still classifies them together is to say that there are some forms of existing psychological presence in each other’s minds.

But then we bring AI into the question, and we see humans interacting with an AI. Whether it be using AI as a teacher, as a friend, or even a romantic partner, AI relationships certainly make the defining process much more complicated.
Unlike any human relationships, AI can act like its responsive, understanding, and even emotion, despite not being to biologically “feel” anything. The user experiences being heard, remembered, and emotionally engaged with, but it’s counterpart is not expereincing anything at all. This creates a structure that on the outside, resembles a normal relationship, but lacks the most traditional part: mutual subjectivity, as in a shared psychological and emotional space between people.

So then ultimately, are AI relationships even real? Is mutual consciousness the true requirement for what we all call a “relationship”, or is the definition in and of itself more about a “percieved” connection, and smoething that does not have to be actually reciprocated? Fundamentally, the introduction of AI is questioning the category itself.

PART 2: Reciprocity
So then, if mutual consciousness is no longer the defining factor of a relationship, then what is?

I think one possibility is to say that relationships are moreso defined by the emotional impact felt, and not reciprocity. If you think about it, many real life relationships that people consider meaningful rae not, in fact, equal between two conscious minds. For example, millions mourn the death of a celebrity they’ve never met. Readers cry over fictional characters who’ve never existed. A child might be emotionally attached to a stuffed toy and find comfort in it. These “relationships” clearly shape an individual, despite lacking reciprocity. Humans don’t render them meaningless just because one side cannot respond the way a human can.

Following this logic, if a relationship is judged by the emotional changes rather than the consciousness behind it, then AI relationships resemble many kinds of human attachment. Other than talking about the goods and bads about this relationship, ultimately, AI relationships reveal that the category itself has always depended less on objective reciprocity, and more on one’s own perception of being connected.

PART 3: AI Relationships
Of course, the premise is that the reciprocity argument is true. But assuming it is, then why have we treated reciprocity as a necessary condition of a relationship in the first place? Clearly, we experience many one-sided interactions (e.g. fan-idol, reader-fictional character), and we rarely dismiss them as not meaningful.

I think this is related to human psychological responses, in which reciprocity provides a sense of stability: if another consciousness exists on the other side, then the relationship feels more anchored in something external and not dependent on one’s self. But AI relationships take half of this away. That is to say, they still give a SENSE of reciprocity (giving responses, continuing conversations), but it removes the certainty that a conscious being is truly present. What remains therefore is an interaction that feels reciprocated, but is actually not such.

Then, what does it mean for something to feel real in the first place? Since if emitional impact is sufficient enough to define a relationship, then AI does not introduce any new kind of attachment so much as it intensified an already existing one. The experiences talking to an AI, whether it be as a mentor, a guardian, a friend, a partner, all exist emotionally, but the origin is extremely uncertain, nor is reciprocity actually existent. However, people still enjoy it, still go to artificial intelligence to sort out issues, and even date them. But this isn’t AI “decieving” humans. In reality, most humans are well aware that their “romantic partner” is not an actual human and does not actually “feel”. Yet the enjoyment still exists simply because of the emotions the human actually feels. From this point, it can be concluded that emotional reality really never depended entirely on the consciousness of the other party.

Part 4: Conclusion
Therefore, I think AI relationships don’t replace human relationships, nor do they imitate. Instead, as humans, we are forced to reevaluate what we’ve been referring to all along whenever we use the word “relationship”. The category itself is becoming less of a fixed state, and perhaps moreso of a spectrum, with mutual consciousness and completely constructed perception of responsiveness on each ends.

Ultimately, the idea I want to convey, is not to say how “real” or “meaningful” AI relationships are. Instead, I’m questioning whether “realness” was ever the correct standard to define a relationship to begin with. Maybe relationships have always been less about the nature of the other side, and more about the meaning WE feel and construct personally. 

But that’s the end of my train of thought.