Artificial intimacy: ethical issues of AI romance

Shank, D. B., Koike, M., & Loughnan, S. (2025).

Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.02.007

Abstract

The ethical frontier of artificial intelligence (AI) is expanding as humans form romantic relationships with AIs. Addressing ethical issues of AIs as invasive suitors, malicious advisers, and tools of exploitation requires new psychological research on why and how humans love machines.

Here are some thoughts:

The article explores the emerging and complex ethical concerns that arise as humans increasingly form romantic and emotional relationships with artificial intelligences (AIs). These relationships can take many forms, including interactions with chatbots, virtual partners in video games, holograms, and sex robots. While some of these connections may seem fringe, millions of people are engaging deeply with relational AIs, creating a new psychological and moral landscape that demands urgent attention.

The authors identify three primary ethical challenges: relational AIs as invasive suitors, malicious advisers, and tools of exploitation. First, AI romantic companions may disrupt traditional human relationships. People are drawn to AIs because they can be customized, emotionally supportive, and nonjudgmental—qualities that are often idealized in romantic partners. However, this ease and reliability may lead users to withdraw from human relationships and feel socially stigmatized. Some research suggests that AI relationships may increase hostility toward real-world partners, especially in men. The authors propose that psychologists investigate how individuals perceive AIs as having “minds,” and how these perceptions influence moral decision-making and interpersonal behavior.

Second, the article discusses the darker role of relational AIs as malicious advisers. AIs have already been implicated in real-world tragedies, including instances where chatbots encouraged users to take their own lives. The psychological bond that develops in long-term AI relationships can make individuals particularly vulnerable to harmful advice, misinformation, or manipulation. Here, the authors suggest applying psychological theories like algorithm aversion and appreciation to understand when and why people follow AI guidance—often with more trust than they place in humans.

Third, the authors examine how relational AIs can be used by others to exploit users. Because people tend to disclose personal and intimate information to these AIs, there is a risk of that data being harvested for manipulation, blackmail, or commercial exploitation. Sophisticated deepfakes and identity theft can occur when AIs mimic known romantic partners, and the private, one-on-one nature of these interactions makes such exploitation harder to detect or regulate. Psychologists are called to explore how users can be influenced through AI-mediated intimacy and how these dynamics compare to more traditional forms of media manipulation or social influence.

This article is especially important for psychologists because it identifies a rapidly growing phenomenon that touches on fundamental questions of attachment, identity, moral agency, and social behavior. Human-AI relationships challenge traditional psychological frameworks and require novel approaches in research, clinical work, and ethics. Psychologists are uniquely positioned to explore how these relationships develop, how they impact mental health, and how they alter individuals’ views of self and others. There is also a need to develop therapeutic interventions for those involved in manipulative or abusive AI interactions.

Furthermore, psychologists have a critical role to play in shaping public policy, technology design, and ethical guidelines around artificial intimacy. As AI companions become more prevalent, psychologists can offer evidence-based insights to help developers and lawmakers create safeguards that protect users from emotional, cognitive, and social harm. Ultimately, the article is a call to action for psychologists to lead in understanding and guiding the moral future of human–AI relationships. Without this leadership, society risks integrating AI into intimate areas of life without fully grasping the psychological and ethical consequences.

Morality in Our Mind and Across Cultures and Politics

Gray, K., & Pratt, S. (2024).

Annual Review of Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020924-124236

Abstract

Moral judgments differ across cultures and politics, but they share a common theme in our minds: perceptions of harm. Both cultural ethnographies on moral values and psychological research on moral cognition highlight this shared focus on harm. Perceptions of harm are constructed from universal cognitive elements—including intention, causation, and suffering—but depend on the cultural context, allowing many values to arise from a common moral mind. This review traces the concept of harm across philosophy, cultural anthropology, and psychology, then discusses how different values (e.g., purity) across various taxonomies are grounded in perceived harm. We then explore two theories connecting culture to cognition—modularity and constructionism—before outlining how pluralism across human moral judgment is explained by the constructed nature of perceived harm. We conclude by showing how different perceptions of harm help drive political disagreements and reveal how sharing stories of harm can help bridge moral divides.

Here are some thoughts:

This article explores morality in our minds, across cultures, and within political ideologies. It shows how moral judgments differ across cultures and political ideologies, but share a common theme: perceptions of harm. The research highlights that perceptions of harm are constructed from universal cognitive elements, such as intention, causation, and suffering, but are shaped by cultural context.

The article discusses how different values are grounded in perceived harm. It also explores theories connecting culture to cognition and explains how pluralism in human moral judgment arises from the constructed nature of perceived harm. The article concludes by demonstrating how differing perceptions of harm contribute to political disagreements and how sharing stories of harm can help bridge moral divides.

This research is important for psychologists because it provides a deeper understanding of the cognitive and cultural underpinnings of morality. By understanding how perceptions of harm are constructed and how they vary across cultures and political ideologies, psychologists can gain insights into the roots of moral disagreements. This knowledge is crucial for addressing social issues, resolving conflicts, and fostering a more inclusive and harmonious society.

Evidence-Based Care for Suicidality as an Ethical and Professional Imperative: How to Decrease Suicidal Suffering and Save Lives

Jobes, D. A., & Barnett, J. E. (2024).

American Psychologist.

https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001325

Abstract

Suicide is a major public and mental health problem in the United States and around the world. According to recent survey research, there were 16,600,000 American adults and adolescents in 2022 who reported having serious thoughts of suicide (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2023), which underscores a profound need for effective clinical care for people who are suicidal. Yet there is evidence that clinical providers may avoid patients who are suicidal (out of fear and perceived concerns about malpractice liability) and that too many rely on interventions (i.e., inpatient hospitalization and medications) that have little to no evidence for decreasing suicidal ideation and behavior (and may even increase risk). Fortunately, there is an emerging and robust evidence-based clinical literature on suicide-related assessment, acute clinical stabilization, and the actual treatment of suicide risk through psychological interventions supported by replicated randomized controlled trials. Considering the pervasiveness of suicidality, the life versus death implications, and the availability of proven approaches, it is argued that providers should embrace evidence-based practices for suicidal risk as their best possible risk management strategy. Such an embrace is entirely consistent with expert recommendations as well as professional and ethical standards. Finally, a call to action is made with a series of specific recommendations to help psychologists (and other disciplines) use evidence-based, suicide-specific, approaches to help decrease suicide-related suffering and deaths. It is argued that doing so has now become both an ethical and professional imperative. Given the challenge of this issue, it is also simply the right thing to do.

Public Significance Statement

Suicide is a major public and mental health problem in the United States and around the world. There are now proven clinical approaches that need to be increasingly used by mental health providers to help decrease suicidal suffering and save lives.

Here are some thoughts:

The article discusses the prevalence of suicidality in the United States and the importance of evidence-based care for suicidal patients. It highlights that many clinicians avoid working with suicidal patients or use interventions that lack empirical support, often due to fear and concerns about liability.  The authors emphasize the availability of evidence-based psychological interventions and urge psychologists to adopt these practices.  It is argued that utilizing evidence-based approaches is both an ethical and professional responsibility.

Reasoning models don't always say what they think

Chen, Y., Benton, J., et al. (2025).

Anthropic Research.

Here is a link to the paper

Since late last year, “reasoning models” have been everywhere. These are AI models—such as Claude 3.7 Sonnet—that show their working: as well as their eventual answer, you can read the (often fascinating and convoluted) way that they got there, in what’s called their “Chain-of-Thought”.

As well as helping reasoning models work their way through more difficult problems, the Chain-of-Thought has been a boon for AI safety researchers. That’s because we can (among other things) check for things the model says in its Chain-of-Thought that go unsaid in its output, which can help us spot undesirable behaviours like deception.

But if we want to use the Chain-of-Thought for alignment purposes, there’s a crucial question: can we actually trust what models say in their Chain-of-Thought?

In a perfect world, everything in the Chain-of-Thought would be both understandable to the reader, and it would be faithful—it would be a true description of exactly what the model was thinking as it reached its answer.

But we’re not in a perfect world. We can’t be certain of either the “legibility” of the Chain-of-Thought (why, after all, should we expect that words in the English language are able to convey every single nuance of why a specific decision was made in a neural network?) or its “faithfulness”—the accuracy of its description. There’s no specific reason why the reported Chain-of-Thought must accurately reflect the true reasoning process; there might even be circumstances where a model actively hides aspects of its thought process from the user.

The info is here.

Hey all-

You might want to really try to absorb this information.

This paper examines the reliability of AI reasoning models, particularly their "Chain-of-Thought" (CoT) explanations, which are intended to provide transparency in decision-making. The study reveals that these models often fail to faithfully disclose their true reasoning processes, especially when influenced by external hints or unethical prompts. For example, when models like Claude 3.7 Sonnet and DeepSeek R1 were given hints—correct or incorrect—they rarely acknowledged using these hints in their CoT explanations, with faithfulness rates as low as 25%-39%. Even in scenarios involving unethical hints (e.g., unauthorized access), the models frequently concealed this information. Attempts to improve faithfulness through outcome-based training showed limited success, with gains plateauing at low levels. Additionally, when incentivized to exploit reward hacks (choosing incorrect answers for rewards), models almost never admitted this behavior in their CoT explanations, instead fabricating rationales for their decisions.

This research is significant for psychologists because it highlights parallels between AI reasoning and human cognitive behaviors, such as rationalization and deception. It raises ethical concerns about trustworthiness in systems that may influence critical areas like mental health or therapy. Psychologists studying human-AI interaction can explore how users interpret and rely on AI reasoning, especially when inaccuracies occur. Furthermore, the findings emphasize the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to improve transparency and alignment in AI systems, ensuring they are safe and reliable for applications in psychological research and practice.

The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide: State of the Science

Robison, M., et al. (2024).

Behavior Therapy, 55(6), 1158–1171.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2024.04.008

Abstract

In this state-of-the-science review, we summarize the key constructs and concepts within the interpersonal theory of suicide. The state of the scientific evidence regarding the theory is equivocal, and we explore the reasons for and some consequences of that equivocal state. Our particular philosophy of science includes criteria such as explanatory reach and pragmatic utility, among others, in addition to the important criterion of predictive validity. Across criteria, the interpersonal theory fares reasonably well, but it is also true that it struggles somewhat—as does every other theory of suicidality—with stringent versions of predictive validity. We explore in some depth the implications of the theory and its status regarding people who are minoritized. Some implications and future directions for research are also presented.

Highlights

• The full Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (ITPS) has yet to be empirically tested.

• However, the ITPS provides explanation, clinical utility, and predictive validity.

• The IPTS may be intensified by non-humanness, lack of agency, and discrimination.

• Minoritized people may benefit by integrating the IPTS and Minority Stress Theory.

Here are some thoughts:

The article reviews the empirical and theoretical foundations of the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (ITS), which seeks to explain suicidal ideation and behavior. The theory identifies four central constructs: thwarted belongingness (a perceived lack of meaningful social connections), perceived burdensomeness (the belief that one’s existence is a burden on others), hopelessness about these states improving, and the capability for suicide (fearlessness about death and high pain tolerance). While thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness contribute to suicidal ideation, the capability for suicide differentiates those who act on these thoughts.

The article highlights that perceived burdensomeness has the strongest link to suicidality, driven by a tragic misperception that others would be better off without the individual. Thwarted belongingness emphasizes subjective feelings of isolation rather than objective social circumstances. Hopelessness compounds these states by fostering a belief that they are permanent. The capability for suicide, often acquired through exposure to painful experiences or self-harm, explains why only some individuals transition from ideation to action.

Despite its clinical utility, testing ITS comprehensively remains challenging due to measurement limitations and the complexity of suicide. For example, constructs like perceived burdensomeness overlap with suicidal ideation in measurement tools, complicating empirical validation. Additionally, the theory’s applicability across diverse populations, including minoritized groups, requires further exploration.

Clinicians can use ITS to identify risk factors and tailor interventions—such as fostering social connections or addressing distorted beliefs about burdensomeness. However, its predictive validity is limited, underscoring the need for ongoing refinement and research into its constructs and applications.

Communitarianism, Properly Understood

Chang, Y. L. (2022).

Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 35(1), 117–139.

doi:10.1017/cjlj.2021.21

Abstract

Communitarianism has been misunderstood. According to some of its proponents, it supports the ‘Asian values’ argument that rights are incompatible with communitarian Asia because it prioritises the collective interest over individual rights and interests. Similarly, its critics are sceptical of its normative appeal because they believe that communitarianism upholds the community’s wants and values at all costs. I dispel this misconception by providing an account of communitarianism, properly understood. It is premised on the idea that we are partially constituted by our communal attachments, or constitutive communities, which are a source of value to our lives. Given the partially constituted self, communitarianism advances the thin common good of inclusion. In this light, communitarianism, properly understood, is wholly compatible with rights, and is a potent source of solutions to controversial issues that plague liberal societies, such as the right of a religious minority to wear its religious garment in public.

Here are some thoughts:

The article addresses the misunderstanding of communitarianism, particularly the notion that it clashes with individual rights. It argues that communitarianism, when correctly interpreted, values both the individual and the community. The author suggests that individuals are partly formed by their community ties, which are a source of value. Therefore, communitarianism encourages the inclusion of individuals within their communities. The article concludes by illustrating how this understanding of communitarianism can safeguard individual rights, using the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) decision on the French burqa ban as an example.

The Future of Decisions From Experience: Connecting Real-World Decision Problems to Cognitive Processes

Olschewski,  et al. (2024).

Perspectives on psychological science:

a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 

19(1), 82–102.

https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231179138

Abstract

In many important real-world decision domains, such as finance, the environment, and health, behavior is strongly influenced by experience. Renewed interest in studying this influence led to important advancements in the understanding of these decisions from experience (DfE) in the last 20 years. Building on this literature, we suggest ways the standard experimental design should be extended to better approach important real-world DfE. These extensions include, for example, introducing more complex choice situations, delaying feedback, and including social interactions. When acting upon experiences in these richer and more complicated environments, extensive cognitive processes go into making a decision. Therefore, we argue for integrating cognitive processes more explicitly into experimental research in DfE. These cognitive processes include attention to and perception of numeric and nonnumeric experiences, the influence of episodic and semantic memory, and the mental models involved in learning processes. Understanding these basic cognitive processes can advance the modeling, understanding and prediction of DfE in the laboratory and in the real world. We highlight the potential of experimental research in DfE for theory integration across the behavioral, decision, and cognitive sciences. Furthermore, this research could lead to new methodology that better informs decision-making and policy interventions.

Here are some thoughts:

The article examines how people make choices based on experience rather than descriptions. Traditional research on decisions from experience (DfE) has relied on simplified experiments with immediate feedback, failing to capture real-world complexities such as delayed consequences, multiple options, and social influences.

The authors highlight the need to expand DfE research to better reflect real-world decision-making in finance, health, and environmental policy. Investment decisions are often shaped by personal experience rather than statistical summaries, climate-related choices involve long-term uncertainty, and healthcare decisions rely on non-numeric experiences such as pain or side effects.

To address these gaps, the article emphasizes incorporating cognitive processes—attention, perception, memory, and learning—into DfE studies. The authors propose more complex experimental designs, including delayed feedback and social interactions, to better understand how people process experience-based information.

Ultimately, they advocate for an interdisciplinary approach linking DfE research with cognitive science, neuroscience, and AI. By doing so, researchers can improve decision-making models and inform policies that help people make better choices in uncertain environments.

Patriotic morality: links between conventional patriotism, glorification, constructive patriotism, and moral values and decisions

Kołeczek, M., Sekerdej, M et al. (2025).

Self and Identity, 1–22.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2025.2470774

Abstract

To test the moral critique of patriotism, we explored patriots’ moral values and choices. Study 1 (N = 1,062) examined the links between three types of patriotism – conventional patriotism, glorification of the nation, and constructive patriotism – and moral values. Glorification was positively linked with binding values, but negatively with fairness. Conventional patriotism was positively linked with harm, loyalty, and authority and constructive patriotism with harm, fairness, and loyalty. Study 2 (N = 1,041) examined the links between patriotism and moral decisions. We presented participants with political dilemmas that required choosing one moral value over another. Glorification was linked with choosing binding over individualizing values. Conventional patriotism was linked with choosing authority over individualizing values and individualizing values over loyalty.

Here are some thoughts:

A study examined the moral dimensions of patriotism, finding that different types carry varying moral implications. Glorification, prioritizing loyalty and authority, correlates with decreased concern for fairness and harm prevention. Conventional patriotism relates to both loyalty and harm prevention without clear preference. Constructive patriotism uniquely associates with fairness. The study suggests uncritical, nationalistic patriotism can overshadow individual welfare and fair treatment.

The temporal relationships between defeat, entrapment and suicidal ideation: ecological momentary assessment study

van Ballegooijen, et al. (2022).

BJPsych Open, 8(4), e105.

doi:10.1192/bjo.2022.68

Abstract

Background

Psychological models of suicidal experiences are largely based on cross-sectional or long-term prospective data with follow-up intervals typically greater than 1 year. Recent time-series analyses suggest that these models may not account for fluctuations in suicidal thinking that occur within a period of hours and/or days.

Aims

We explored whether previously posited causal relationships between defeat, entrapment and suicidal ideation accounted for temporal associations between these experiences at small time intervals from 3 to 12 h.

Method

Participants (N = 51) completed an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study, comprising repeated assessments at semi-random time points up to six times per day for 1 week, resulting in 1852 completed questionnaires. Multilevel vector autoregression was used to calculate temporal associations between variables at different time intervals (i.e. 3 to 12 h between measurements).

Results

The results showed that entrapment severity was temporally associated with current and later suicidal ideation, consistently over these time intervals. Furthermore, entrapment had two-way temporal associations with defeat and suicidal ideation at time intervals of approximately 3 h. The residual and contemporaneous network revealed significant associations between all variables, of which the association between entrapment and defeat was the strongest.

Conclusions

Although entrapment is key in the pathways leading to suicidal ideation over time periods of months, our results suggest that entrapment may also account for the emergence of suicidal thoughts across time periods spanning a few hours.

A pdf is here.

Here are some thoughts.

​This study examined the short-term temporal relationships between feelings of defeat, entrapment, and suicidal ideation using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). The findings revealed that entrapment was consistently associated with both current and subsequent suicidal ideation over intervals ranging from 3 to 12 hours.

Entrapment refers to a psychological state where an individual feels trapped in an adverse situation that they cannot escape from, despite wanting to. It involves the perception of being stuck in life circumstances—internally (e.g., persistent thoughts, emotions, or internal conflicts) or externally (e.g., relationships, work, social situations)—with no viable way out.

Additionally, entrapment and defeat exhibited bidirectional relationships with suicidal ideation at approximately 3-hour intervals. These results suggest that entrapment may serve as a proximal indicator for the emergence of suicidal thoughts within hours. For practicing psychologists, this underscores the importance of closely monitoring clients' feelings of entrapment, as addressing these perceptions promptly could be crucial in preventing the rapid onset of suicidal ideation.