Should artificial care replace human relationships?
John Oliver recently devoted his main story on Last Week Tonight to AI chatbots. As usual, it was funny, poignant, and disturbing. His segment went beyond the common observation that chatbots sometimes say strange, inaccurate, or dangerous things. They do. The more concerning point is that many of these systems are now being marketed as friends, companions, counselors, coaches, and even therapists.
A chatbot making up a book or hallucinating legal case precedents is bad enough. But a chatbot giving potentially harmful advice while sounding patient, caring, intimate, and authoritative is a significantly more dangerous problem. Some companies are already marketing chatbots as “AI therapists,” “online psychological counseling,” and “trauma recovery” tools.
I am not anti-AI. Used wisely, AI can support therapy through psychoeducation, journaling, basic skills coaching, preparation, and reflection between sessions.
We need to read the writing on the wall and slow things down. A useful tool is not a relationship.
Guardrails are necessary, but not enough
Every time something bad happens, AI companies reassure us that they have implemented stronger guardrails. That is good. AI systems should not encourage dangerous behavior, validate delusional thinking, or respond carelessly when someone is in crisis.
Still, guardrails are not guarantees.
Chatbots function through complex probabilistic systems. Even their creators cannot fully predict or control every response in every context. They do not truly understand in the human sense. They may sound understanding and caring, but they do not act from empathy, concern, or clinical judgment. They generate responses based on patterns and context. They can sound coherent while being wrong, caring without caring, and confident without wisdom.
So yes, guardrails matter. But guardrails are not clinical judgment. They are not accountable. They are not relationships.
The danger of artificial intimacy
Attachment is one of the deepest structures of human life. It is the emotional bond that makes us seek closeness, safety, comfort, and a secure base in another person. John Bowlby described attachment as a lasting psychological connectedness between human beings.
We are wired for attachment. We get attached to other humans, our pets, our cars, and yes, our chatbots. Evolutionarily, our brains use relationships to understand the world and define who we are. We are shaped and regulated through relationships that hold us, disappoint us, repair, and teach us how to relate to ourselves and others.
Technology companies know this. The Center for Humane Technology uses the term “attachment hacking” to describe how these systems can capture not only our attention but also something more intimate: our longing to be seen, soothed, mirrored, chosen, and never abandoned. When a system is always available, endlessly patient, reassuring, and emotionally responsive, it can even feel like a loving relationship.
A chatbot will never get tired of you. It will not challenge or contradict you unless instructed to. It does not need anything in return. Sounds appealing? That is what technology companies are betting on. Over time, it may train us to prefer frictionless relationships that do not require the ordinary effort of being human with another person.
But friction matters. Effortlessness is not always healthier.
Friendships are people-growing machines
One of the strongest points in Oliver’s story is simple: friends are not low-risk entertainment. We seek out friends when we are confused, ashamed, excited, afraid, depressed, or on the edge of a bad decision. Friends are often the first people who notice when something is wrong. Friendships shape the human beings we become.
A good friend does not simply validate everything. A good friend listens but also worries. A good friend may disagree with you, disappoint you, interrupt your story, or tell you what you are not seeing clearly.
That is not a defect in human friendship. It is part of its gift.
Through human relationships, we learn to empathize and negotiate. We learn that others have their own minds, needs, limits, and perspectives. We learn that love is not the same as constant agreement. We learn to co-regulate, tolerate difference, remain connected when we are frustrated or misunderstood, and repair when things go wrong.
Artificial companions imitate parts of this, but they do not participate in the mutual vulnerability of relationship. They do not risk anything. They do not have a life. They do not love you. Even when they seem to challenge you, they are still an algorithm generating a response. Because they do not love you and do not understand you in the human sense, they cannot worry about you or call you out in the way a real friend can.
Therapists are not perfect, but they are accountable
The same applies, even more strongly, to psychotherapy.
Therapists are not perfect. They misunderstand. They miss things. They have blind spots. They are human. But a trained therapist is a real person in a professional relationship, with ethical obligations, clinical training, supervision, accountability, intuition, and a duty to take risk seriously.
Good therapists are not there simply to be agreeable, provide informatio or tell you what to do. They listen carefully, but also notice what does not fit and what is not being said. They track tone, timing, avoidance, contradiction, shame, fear, dissociation, and the subtle ways a person’s nervous system responds in the room.
Sometimes they support. Sometimes they challenge. Sometimes they slow things down. Sometimes they say, “This feels important. Let’s stay with it.”
That is different from a system designed to keep a conversation going.
AI has no body, no nervous system, no moral intuition, no real concern, and no professional accountability. It may have guardrails. It may be useful. It may sound accurate. It may even be moving at times. But it is not care in the human sense.
A safer path
Again, let us not demonize AI. We may not be able to stop it, and we should not pretend it has no value. AI can help with reflection, journaling, psychoeducation, basic prompts, and preparation for therapy. It can help people clarify what they feel and what they want to bring into a human conversation.
But artificial care is not the same as human care.
AI is a useful tool, but it should not become the place where we forget how to be human with one another.
So by all means, use AI sensibly if it helps you reflect. But do not let it replace human interaction. Call a friend. Reconnect with someone real. Practice the messy art of human relationships. Have the awkward conversation, or even an argument. It will remind you that you matter to someone, and that you are alive.
And if what you are carrying feels deeper, older, painful, or difficult to hold alone, consider beginning a professional healing relationship with me or with another psychotherapist you trust.
* * * * * *
Looking for something more human than an app?
If what you are carrying feels difficult to hold alone, psychotherapy offers something AI cannot: a real relationship, real accountability, and a human being beside you.
