Back to Home11/12/2025, 12:58:59 PM

New study finds users are marrying and having virtual children with AI chatbots

47 points
87 comments

Mood

thoughtful

Sentiment

mixed

Category

tech

Key topics

AI chatbots

virtual relationships

social impact

Debate intensity70/100

A new study finds users forming intimate relationships with AI chatbots, sparking discussions on the implications and potential consequences of such interactions.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Very active discussion

First comment

44m

Peak period

70

Day 1

Avg / period

70

Comment distribution70 data points

Based on 70 loaded comments

Key moments

  1. 01Story posted

    11/12/2025, 12:58:59 PM

    6d ago

    Step 01
  2. 02First comment

    11/12/2025, 1:42:32 PM

    44m after posting

    Step 02
  3. 03Peak activity

    70 comments in Day 1

    Hottest window of the conversation

    Step 03
  4. 04Latest activity

    11/13/2025, 4:08:44 AM

    6d ago

    Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (87 comments)
Showing 70 comments of 87
theoldgreybeard
6d ago
1 reply
Just send the meteor already.
grafmax
6d ago
Extremely lonely people being exploited by sociopathic corporations for profit. Sounds like a baby and the bathwater scenario to me.
srameshc
6d ago
3 replies
AI if unregulated could be a lot more worse than social media. My kid after his first chat with AI said, he is my new friend. I was alarmed and explain him but what about the parents and guardians who are unaware how the kids are befriending the AI. Part of the problem is also how it is trained to be nice and encouraging. I am sure there are researchers who are talking about it but the question is are the policy makers listening to them ?
giuliomagnifico
6d ago
5 replies
“Regulate”? We can’t, and shouldn’t, regulate everything. Policymakers should focus on creating rules that ensure data safety, but if someone over 18 years wants to marry a chatbot… well, that’s their (stupid) choice.

Instead of trying to control everything, policymakers should educate people about how these chatbots work and how to keep their data safe. After all, not everyone who played Doom in the ’90s became a real killer, or assaults women because of YouPorn.

Society will adapt to these ridiculous new situations…what truly matters is people’s awareness and understanding.

tossandthrow
6d ago
2 replies
You are using an incredibly poor rhetoric technique and setting up a strawman.

This is not about regulating everything.

This is about realizing adverse effects and regulating for those.

Just like no one is selling you toxic youghurt.

potato3732842
6d ago
1 reply
People think that we can just magically regulate everything. It's like a medieval peasant who doesn't understand chemistry/physics/etc thinking they can just pray harder to have better odds of something.

We literally CAN'T regulate some things for any reasonable definition of "can't" or "regulate". Our society is either not rich enough or not organized in a way to actually do it in any useful capacity and not make the problem worse.

I'm not saying AI chatbots are one of those things, but people toss around the idea of regulation way too casually and AI chatbots are way less cut and dry than bad food or toxic waste or whatever other extreme anyone wants to misleadingly project down into the long tail of weird stuff with limited upside and potential for unintended consequences elsewhere.

IAmBroom
6d ago
Again, another strawman.

Which people in specific think that?

All your argument consists of is, "Somebody somewhere believes something untrue, and people don't use enough precision in their speach, so I am recommending we don't do anything regulatory about this problem."

giuliomagnifico
6d ago
2 replies
Having a virtual girlfriend is not selling toxic yoghurts, it doesn’t harm anyone, it’s like if you buy yoghurt and put in on a pizza… you can do want you want with the yoghurt like with the AI.

The important thing is keep the data safe, like the yoghurt that must not be expired when sold.

TFYS
6d ago
Despite what the free market religion has been telling for decades, we actually don't live in little parallel universes that don't affect each other. Even putting yoghurt on pizza has on effect on the world, not just the individual doing it. Not understanding this is what'll be the end of humanity. AI girl/boyfriends will have a huge effect on society, we should think hard before doing things like that. Slightly slower technological progress is not as disastrous as fast progress gone wrong.
IAmBroom
6d ago
The important thing to you.
syntaxing
6d ago
1 reply
I understand what you’re saying but it’s a difficult balance. Not saying everything needs to be regulated and not saying we should be full blown neoliberalism. But think of some of “social” laws we have today (in the US). No child marriages, no child labor, no smoking before 19, and no drinking before 21. These laws are in place because we understand that those who can exploit will do the exploiting. Those who can be exploited will be exploited. That being said, I don’t agree with any of the age verification policies here with adult material. Honestly not sure what the happy medium is.
giuliomagnifico
6d ago
1 reply
I already wrote “over 18”. AI is already regulated, you can’t use it if you’re under 14/18. But if you want to ask ChatGPT “what’s the meaning of everything” or “can we have digital children”, that’s a personal choice.

People are weird… for someone who is totally alone, having a virtual wife/child could be better than being completely alone.

They’re not using ChatGPT to do anything illegal, and already regulated, like planning to kill someone or commit theft.

Freedom2
6d ago
I'm of the opinion that should be unregulated as well. Just like you say, what's important is people's awareness and understanding of the tool and how it works underneath.
tokioyoyo
6d ago
What’s your opinion on current trend of “casino-fication of everything”?
soco
6d ago
We also don't want to regulate everything. Have you seen that someplace, or even here? Or it's an imaginary argument? The topic was regulating AI, and about that I like your thought: humans should be better educated and better informed. Should we, maybe, make a regulation to ensure that?
UtopiaPunk
6d ago
We can, and we should, regulate some things. AI has, quite suddenly, built up billions of dollars worth of infrastructure and become pervasive in people's daily lives. Part of how society adapts to ridiculous new situations is through regulations.

I'm not proposing anything specifically, but the implication that this field should not be regulated is just foolish.

Taganov
6d ago
2 replies
With the current acceleration of technology this is a repeating pattern. The new thing popular with kids is not understood by the parents before it is too late.

It kind of happened for me with online games. They were a new thing, and no one knew to what degree they could be addicting and life damaging. As a result I am probably over protective of my own kids when it comes to anything related to games.

We are already seeing many of the effects of the social media generation and I am not looking forward to what is going to happen to the AI natives whose guardians are ill-prepared to guide them. In the end, society will likely come to grips with it, but the test subjects will pay a heavy price.

potato3732842
6d ago
3 replies
A whole generation turned out fine after murdering hookers in GTA before the industry came up with loot boxes.

How do we know which era of AI we're in?

tempodox
6d ago
1 reply
When you’re murdering hookers in GTA, you know what you’re doing (engaging in a fictional activity). Kids who believe “AI” is their friend don’t.
nh23423fefe
6d ago
No they do.
echelon
6d ago
Violent video games might not have impacted society, but what about addictive social media and addictive online games?

What about the algorithm feeding highly polarized content to folks? It's the new "lead in the air and water" of our generation.

What about green text bubble peer pressure? Fortnite and Roblox FOMO? The billion anime Gatcha games that are exceedingly popular? Whale hunting? Kids are being bullied and industrially engineered into spending money they shouldn't.

Raising kids on iPads, shortened attention spans, social media induced depression and suicide, lack of socialization, inattention in schools, ...

Social media leading people to believe everyone is having more fun than them, is better looking than them, that society is the source of their problems, ...

Now the creepy AI sex bots are replacing real friends.

proteal
6d ago
I tried the new battlefield game and it’s bizarre how some of my friends play it. There’s this expansive battle pass (pay $20/quarter for access, on top of $70 base game) where you’re given tasks in game to make progress towards cosmetics. My friends only play to complete these tasks - the actual combat gameplay loop almost feels secondary to their enjoyment of the game. The modern trend of games becoming chore simulators is worrisome to me because -call me old fashioned- I believe the core gameplay loop should be fun and addictive, not the progression scaffolded on, even if that gameplay loops is a little “distasteful” like GTA.
BinaryIgor
6d ago
100%; it's probably wise to default to better-to-be-conservative-than-sorry policy, at least as of now.
hartator
6d ago
1 reply
Would you have been concerned if he said the plush was his new friend? Calling policy makers to ban plush?

You have to be careful to not overreact to things.

hluska
6d ago
There is a massive difference between a stuffed animal and an LLM. In fact, they have next to nothing in common. And as such, yes any reasonable parent would react differently to a close friendship suddenly formed with any online service.
conception
6d ago
2 replies
qwertytyyuu
6d ago
1 reply
I'm glad to not have seen a r/MyBabyIsAI yet
netsharc
6d ago
My new startup is named TamagotchAI..
lotsofpulp
6d ago
3 replies
The linked study is of 29 “people” (assuming they are real).

How do we know if these examples aren’t just the 0.1% of the population that is, for all intend and purposes, “out there”?

So much of “news” is just finding these corner cases that evoke emotion, but ultimately have no impact.

hluska
6d ago
1 reply
The Stanford Prison Experiment only had 24 participants and implementation problems that should have concerned anyone with a pulse. But it’s been taught for decades.

A lot of psych research uses small samples. It’s a problem, but funding is limited and so it’s a start. Other researchers can take this and build upon it.

Anecdotally, watching people meltdown over the end of ChatGPT 4o indicates this is a bigger problem that 0.1%. And business wise, it would be odd if OpenAI kept an entire model available to serve that small a population.

lotsofpulp
6d ago
The stanford prison experiment is unverifiable. Another example of one of these emotion evoking stories.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31380664/

See critiques of validity section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

conception
6d ago
The outcry when 4o was discontinued was such that open AI kept it on paying subscriptions. There are at least enough people attached to certain AI voices that it warrants a tech startup spending the resources to keep an old model around. That’s probably not an insignificant population.
yapyap
6d ago
I think it IS 0.1% (or less, hopefully) of the population.

But it’s hard to study users having these relationships without studying the users who have these relationships I reckon.

TrackerFF
6d ago
1 reply
Turns out Her wasn’t set in such a distant future.
skylurk
6d ago
Turns out there's a Him, too.
ktallett
6d ago
1 reply
It feels like a more evolved version of those who have what they consider to be relationships with anime characters or virtual idols in Japan. Often treating a doll or lifesize pillow replica of that character as someone the person can interact and spend time with. Obviously like the AI, the fact it is so common does suggest that it must be filling a unmet need in the person and I guess the key focus needs to be how do we help those stuck in that situation to become unstuck and how do we help those feel that unmet need is fulfilled?
BinaryIgor
6d ago
Exactly; it's just a much more powerful medium to express one of the oldest and perennial of society problems
zug_zug
6d ago
1 reply
Of course the loneliest 5% are going to do something like this. If it weren't for AI they'd be writing twilight fan-fic and roleplaying it on some chatroom, or giving all their money to a "saudi prince."

Seems like nothing new, just a better or more immersive form of fantasy for those who can't have the life they fantasize about.

olivierestsage
6d ago
3 replies
I'd argue it'd be psychologically healthier to roleplay in a chatroom with people who are human on the other end (if that could be guaranteed, which it no longer can).
vintermann
6d ago
1 reply
Humans can potentially be much nastier than a chatbot. There are lonely vulnerable who can be exploited, but there are also people who get off on manipulating other people and convincing them to make profoundly self destructive and life altering choices.
awkward
6d ago
1 reply
Chatbots enable self destructive manipulation of others at scale.
vintermann
6d ago
Sure, but Google and OpenAI aren't going to do this kind of manipulation. And the actual sadists are probably not as satisfied with letting a machine do it.
yapyap
6d ago
I’d agree. at least there’s a possibility of real interaction with real people.
IAmBroom
6d ago
I'd argue it'd be psychologically healthier to get therapy and more friends.

So what? We don't live in the "should" universe. We live in this one.

notepad0x90
6d ago
3 replies
Is this neccesarily a bad thing? I think a lot of people assume these same people would have developed relationships with humans otherwise. How many of these people are better off this way? That'd be an interesting study. I've read a couple of articles on how the "loneliness epidemic" is driving down life expectancy. Could AI chatbots negate that?

"It's not real", yeah, that is weird for sure. But I also find wrestling fans weird, they know it's not real and enjoy it anyways. Even most sports, people take it a lot more seriously than they should.

fragmede
6d ago
1 reply
> Is this neccesarily a bad thing?

Yes?

notepad0x90
6d ago
1 reply
For the sake of discussion, it would be great if you can expand on that.
fragmede
6d ago
1 reply
Okay, if you want me to write more...

The direction we're headed, humanity is going to become utterly isolated pods, never interacting. We're going to end up with humanity being one rich dude, a staff of robots, and some humans under his patronage. The other bit of humanity is a rich woman, with a staff of robots, and some humans under her patronage, because nobody can deal with there being other humans that are as gross and sloppy and suck, just as much as they do.

Relationships are hard. They're a lot of work. Not just romantic relationships, but all other kinds of relationships: family, friendship, mentorship, chosen family, colleague, manager, mentee, client, neighbor, teammate, student, citizen, creative partner, audience. Instead of having any kind of relationship with people, I can just hide away, work remote, become hikikomori.

Where does that leave humanity? As Ms Deejay says, do you think you're better off alone?

Because individual humans no long need to coexist with their neighbors, it means the best and worst will flourish. For every supportive person that accepts gay people, there's another person that wants to stone them. Interacting with lots of other people is the only way to develop nuanced opinions of groups of other people, and without any kind of forced interaction, there won't be any, further isolating everybody from everyone else.

notepad0x90
6d ago
I think there is a lot of hypberbole in your argument. People interacting because they have no other choice is not a good thing. Do you think forced arranged marriages are good? Do you think being stuck in a toxic relationship of any kind is good? Even on the milder side, boomers and gen-x are chok full of marriages that started because people didn't want to be alone, or because it's "what everybody else does" and then they end up in divorce, and you have all sorts of messed up "children of divorce" left behind.

I don't think anyone would choose a relationship with a computer, or isolation when the alternative is a healthy relationship of their own choice. There is still no replacement for real and authentic human relationships.

Relationships are hard, but entering them should be voluntary, not coerced. and my answer to Ms Deejay is: Yeah, we're better off alone than being stuck in a coerced toxic relationship. No one goes "hikomori" or "forever alone" when they could have just put up with some disagreements and uncomfortable situations.

It's important for people to learn to be alone and ok with it. to be content and happy with your own company. If I was being a reductionist, I would even claim that most of the ails of the world are rooted in coerced relationships. Conflict as the default state of a relationship is not better than solitude. But solitude as the default state of a person isn't healthy either.

Balance is key to most things. Have relationships, put up with the messiness of people, but up to a point. Be comfortable with solitude, but up to a point only. Be your own friend first, so you can be one to others.

People are being more isolated, but not because they want to be to the most part, and not because of techonology, but by the reconstruction of society so that the most labor and capital can be extracted from a person. Public transportations, public spaces, walkable cities, social media that isn't a brainwashing machine, AI that isn't trained to manipulate human psychology,etc.. those are the changes we need. The false dichotomoy of "all or nothing" you eschew is anathema to the goals you seek.

Hermits have been around since forever. You can hunt in the woods, read books and chill with your dog in the Alaska or any number of remote places, and many have done that all through history. Your sentiment is similar to how they thought people won't even talk to each other anymore in person after the invention of telephones. People talked less in person for sure, but we still talk to each other in person, even when a call is easier.

giraffe_lady
6d ago
1 reply
Something I use as a heuristic that is pretty reliable is "am I treating a thing like a person, or a person like a thing?" If so then, maybe not necessarily bad but probably bad.

It's not about whether it's "real" or not. In this case of AI relationships, extremely sophisticated and poorly understood mechanisms of social-emotional communication and meaning making that have previously only ever been used for bonding with other people, and to a limited extent animals, are being directed at a machine. And we find that the mechanisms respond to that machine as if there is a person there, when there is not.

There is a lot of novel stuff happening there, technologically, socially, psychologically. We don't really know, and I don't trust anyone who is confidently predicting, what effects that will have on the person doing it, or their other social bonds.

Wrestling is theater! It's an ancient craft, well understood. If you're going to approach AI relationships as a natural extension of some well established human activity probably pet bonding is the closest. I don't think it's even that close though.

notepad0x90
6d ago
1 reply
But you know that the alternative is a lot of other mental illnesses, including things like suicide. Everyone tells people "get mental help" but is neither cheap, nor accessible to most people.
giraffe_lady
6d ago
1 reply
I've seen no evidence that this sort of relationship to AI use is an effective alternative to mental health treatment. In fact it's so far looking to be about the opposite: as currently implemented LLMs are reinforcement tools for delusional thinking and have already been a known factor in several suicides.

The inaccessibility of healthcare in the US is a serious problem but this is not a solution or alternative to it right now and may never become one.

notepad0x90
6d ago
1 reply
To me what you're saying is akin to "I see no evidence lab grown food is healthier than real food, so people under famine and malnourishment should instead wait for someone to give them aid instead of eat lab grown food".

I don't think AI can replace mental health treatment or human relationships. But it might be a viable stop-gap. It's like tom hanks talking to "Wilson" the volleyball when he was stuck on island in "cast away". Yeah, it's weird, but it helped him survive and cope until he was rescued. I want these people struggling with mental health to survive and cope until they get real help some day. I want less suicides, less people contracting chronic illnesses,etc.. and to hell with any "appearances" of weirdness or stigma.

giraffe_lady
6d ago
1 reply
You're not engaging with my comments in favor of arguing with words I didn't say in defense of positions I don't hold. I don't really see a role for myself in that activity so I'll leave you to it.
notepad0x90
6d ago
I don't think that's fair, i was mostly respond to your first sentence and:

> The inaccessibility of healthcare in the US is a serious problem but this is not a solution or alternative to it right now and may never become one.

My response was clearly not your words, but my understanding of your conclusion.

The few suicides that are reported pale in comparison to suicides caused by loneliness. An argument can also be made that they just haven't trained/found the right companion model yet.

everdrive
6d ago
1 reply
We're stuck in a really perverse collective-action problem. And, we keep doing this to ourselves. These technologies are not enriching our lives, but once they're adopted we either use them, or voluntarily fall behind. There seems to be very little general philanthropy in this regard.
notepad0x90
6d ago
1 reply
I think that's a false dichotomy. tech isn't good or bad, it's what we do with it that is. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
everdrive
6d ago
1 reply
So many of today's problems could be good in principle, but the surrounding facts (laws, human nature, etc.) render them awful. Did anyone think 20 years ago that algorithmic feeds would be so bad? I don't see a reason in principle that they must be bad, but it's clear that we'd be far better off without them.
notepad0x90
6d ago
we're not better off without algorithms either, they've vastly improved the quality of lives for many. My point is that it is us humans who are corrupt and evil, that is the problem that needs fixing, not our tools and instruments.

The first thing we did with nuclear power is mass-killing and weapons. But if only we used it for power generation a lot more, we could have even avoided the climate crisis happening now.

Lots of harm caused by fire, but it is a pillar of human cvilization.

Nevertheless, you can't unspill milk as they say. It is even more pointless than the "war on drugs". you can regulate the models though. and stop telling people to seek mental health, it isn't something you seek and magically you go "poof" and you're cured. If you can be a friend to someone instead of some AI, do that! be the solution. else, get out of their way. If they can google chatgpt, they can google "mental health". people have been making friends with inanimate objects since forever. lonely people talk to dolls and puppets. There is a huge market for human like doll wives that costs >$5k. There are even mainstream movies with a-list actors in them about this like "lars and the real girl" and "her".

Life is hard and then you die. people grasp at straws to last as long as they can, because everything that lives wants to continue to live. and I hope they fight their best fight instead of giving up early after being dismissed by society to "seek mental help" lol.

P.S.: "mental help" is like lawyers, they're there for the corporations and the ultra-wealthy. everything accessible by normal people, to the most part that is, is not useful unless your goal is to get pilled-up, in which case I doubt that is better than just talking to some inanimate computer.

jcims
6d ago
1 reply
I have two grandkids, one's 3 years old and one's 9 months old.

I feel like I'm not really ready for everything that's going to be vying for their attention in the next couple of decades. My daughter and her husband have good practices in place already IMHO but it's going to be a pernicious beast.

slumberlust
6d ago
Do your best like countless generations before.

Perfection is not required.

hamasho
6d ago
1 reply
I used to despise AIs' ass-kissing responses. It doesn't add any value, and it's so cheap it's almost sarcastic. But now, I feel sad because Codex doesn't praise me even though I come up with a super-clever implementation.

I think the part of my brain for feeling flattered when someone praises me didn't exist because no one complimented me. But after ChatGPT and Claude flattered me again and again, I finally developed the circuit for feeling accepted, respected, and loved...

It reminds me of when I started stretching after my 30s. First it was nothing but a torture, but after a while I began to feel good and comfortable when my muscles were stretched, and now I feel like shit when I skip the morning stretching.

theoldgreybeard
6d ago
You should watch this, seems relevant: [ChatGPT Made Me Delusional](https://youtu.be/VRjgNgJms3Q)
johnea
6d ago
I just find this whole thing so frikin' hilarious!

"virtual children"? WTF is that even?

Is it sort of like playing with barbie? except you don't even have the barbie doll?

Any people able to participate in this delusion, are children, regardless of age.

The lost in cyberspace adult-age children are setting themselves up for the greatest consumer exploitation ever experienced in human history...

josefritzishere
6d ago
Can someone ask Dante which circle of hell this is?
Qem
6d ago
I'm sure Skynet could easily win in Terminator by sending a virtual boyfriend to Sarah Connor, instead of sending a trigger-happy cyborg after her.
kkfx
6d ago
Ah, ok... I suppose it's very interesting to make them..............
4b11b4
6d ago
oh man... People are marrying like in world of warcraft... but... with bots?
causal
6d ago
"Study finds..." feels clickbaity to me whenever the study is just "we found some randos on social media doing a thing". With little effort a study could find just about any type of person you want on the Internet.
SJC_Hacker
6d ago
VHE has arrived

17 more comments available on Hacker News

ID: 45899592Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 6:02:11 AM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.