CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryLiterary and Philosophical Studies

Second-Person Authenticity and the Mediating Role of AI: A Moral Challenge for Human-to-Human Relationships?

Open access
Battisti, Davide·2025·Philosophy & Technology
DOI 10.1007/s13347-025-00857-w
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The development of AI tools, such as large language models and speech emotion and facial expression recognition systems, has raised new ethical concerns about AI’s impact on human relationships. While much of the debate has focused on human-AI relationships, less attention has been devoted to another class of ethical issues, which arise when AI mediates human-to-human relationships. This paper opens the debate on these issues by analyzing the case of romantic relationships, particularly those in which one partner uses AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to resolve a conflict and apologize. After reviewing some possible, non-exhaustive, explanations for the moral wrongness of using AI tools in such cases, I introduce the notion of second-person authenticity: a form of authenticity that is assessed by the other person in the relationship (e.g., a partner). I then argue that at least some actions within romantic relationships should respect a standard of authentic conduct since the value of such actions depends on who actually performs them and not only on the quality of the outcome produced. Therefore, using AI tools in such circumstances may prevent agents from meeting this standard. I conclude by suggesting that the proposed theoretical framework could also apply to other human-to-human relationships, such as the doctor-patient relationship, when these are mediated by AI; I offer some preliminary reflections on such applications.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13347-025-00857-w

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI agents are intentionally designed to simulate love, loyalty, and desire.

    “AI agents are not emotionally capable, yet they are intentionally designed to simulate love, loyalty, and desire (Battisti 2025).”

    From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Battisti 2025

    The Introduction describes commercial AI applications that create virtual personas for conversation and role-playing, and notes that some users perceive their relationships with AI as romantic. It does not say that AI agents are intentionally designed to simulate love, loyalty, and desire, or establish that they lack emotional capacity. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AI agents are not emotionally capable.

    “AI agents are not emotionally capable, yet they are intentionally designed to simulate love, loyalty, and desire (Battisti 2025).”

    From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Battisti 2025

    The Introduction (section 1; page unavailable) describes commercialized AI applications with virtual personas that engage in romantic role-playing, which partly supports the sentence’s point about simulated relationships. It does not say that AI agents lack emotional capacity or that they are designed to simulate love, loyalty, and desire specifically. Searches for emotional capacity and those terms found no confirming passage. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Munn, N., & Weijers, D. M. (2023). Can we be friends with AI? What risks would arise from the proliferation of such friendships? International Conference on Computer Ethics, 1(1). Retrieved from https://soremo.library.iit.edu/index.php/CEPE2023/article/view/254. Accessed 13 Feb 2025.
  2. Sartre, J. P., & Richmond. (2022). Being and nothingness. Routledge.
  3. Zhou, Y., & Fischer, M. H. (Eds.). (2020). AI love you (2019th ed.). Springer Nature.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Battisti, D.
Affiliations
University of Bergamo (IT)
Corresponding author
Battisti, Davide
ORCID
Battisti, Davide
Venue
Philosophy & Technology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-02-25
Volume
38
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-5441
DOI
10.1007/s13347-025-00857-w
OpenAlex
W4407932534
Cited by
25
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 8
FWCI
25.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Aisberg (University of Bergamo) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
Keywords
romantic relationships, ChatGPT, conflict resolution, apology, authenticity, physician-patient relationship, large language models, speech emotion recognition, facial expression recognition, human-AI relationship

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review