Cited by 12

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Self‐Deception in Human–AI Emotional Relations

Kaczmarek, Emilia·2025·Journal of Applied Philosophy

Abstract

Imagine a man chatting with his AI girlfriend app. He looks at his smartphone and says, ‘Finally, I'm being understood’. Is he deceiving himself? Is there anything morally wrong with it? The human tendency to anthropomorphize AI is well established, and the popularity of AI companions is growing. This article answers three questions: (1) How can being charmed by AI's simulated emotions be considered self‐deception? (2) Why might we have an obligation to avoid harmless self‐deception? (3) When is self‐deception in emotional relationships with AI morally questionable, and can it be blameworthy? Regarding question 1, I describe being seduced by AI's simulated emotions as self‐deception, where desires bias beliefs. In response to question 2, I outline two ways to justify a prima facie obligation to avoid harmless self‐deception – instrumental and autotelic. For question 3, I highlight crucial factors to consider in assessing the blameworthiness of harmless self‐deception, such as the emotional and cognitive competences of the self‐deceiver, reasons for self‐deception, and its consequences for one's predispositions, self‐image, and other people. Moreover, I argue that the ethical requirement to avoid self‐deception does not easily translate into attributing blame to others for being self‐deceived.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/japp.12786

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Deception in human-AI relationships may depend on the user's autonomy, as well as their cognitive, social and emotional competencies.

    “Fourth, considering the ethical concerns surrounding AI-driven sweet deception, authors argue that deception in human-AI relationships may depend on the user's autonomy, as well as their cognitive, social and emotional competencies (Kaczmarek, 2024).”

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1007/s10730-018-9356-5 · DOI
  2. 10.1007/s10676-011-9266-6 · DOI
  3. Buscicchi L., 2024, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  4. 10.1109/T-AFFC.2011.29 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s00146-023-01710-4 · DOI
  6. Crawford K., 2021, Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence
  7. 10.1007/s10676-019-09520-3 · DOI
  8. Darling K., 2022, The New Breed: How to Think about Robots
  9. 10.1080/09515080903532290 · DOI
  10. Jaspers K., 2001, The Question of German Guilt
  11. Kant I., 1895, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics
  12. Kirsch J., The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  13. Kołakowski L., 1971, Ethics Without a Moral Code, Tri Quarterly, 22, 153
  14. 10.1111/j.0034-0006.2004.00255.x · DOI
  15. 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2011.00532.x · DOI
  16. 10.7551/mitpress/6919.001.0001 · DOI
  17. 10.1353/ken.2015.0007 · DOI
  18. McMahon J. L., 2002, The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real, 166
  19. Mele A. R., 2001, Self‐Deception Unmasked
  20. Mill J. S., 1863, Utilitarianism
  21. Moravec H., 1988, Mind Children
  22. 10.1007/978-3-030-12579-0 · DOI
  23. 10.1145/1408800.1408831 · DOI
  24. O'Neill O., 1991, A Companion to Ethics
  25. 10.1353/hcr.2005.0067 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101993 · DOI
  27. 10.1145/2874239.2874281 · DOI
  28. 10.1177/1357034X10364767 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1007/s10676-015-9371-z · DOI
  30. Roeser S., 2012, The Ethics of Technological Risk
  31. Scheutz M., 2011, Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, 205
  32. 10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Shikhar G., 2023, Harvard Business School Case, 823
  34. 10.1023/A:1021386708994 · DOI
  35. 10.1007/s12369-017-0413-z · DOI
  36. 10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6 · DOI
  37. 10.1007/s10676-021-09589-9 · DOI
  38. 10.2307/j.ctvv41887 · DOI
  39. 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1075/nlp.8.03tur · DOI
  41. Turri John, 2021, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition)
  42. 10.1007/s10676-021-09598-8 · DOI
  43. 10.1515/9783839462652-005 · DOI
  44. Weijers D., 2021, Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence, 209
  45. Weizenbaum J., 1976, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation
  46. Williams B., 2002, Truth and Truthfulness. An Essay in Genealogy

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kaczmarek, E.
Affiliations
Faculty of Philosophy, Ethics Department, Center for Bioethics and Biolaw University of Warsaw Warsaw Poland
Venue
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-12-22
Volume
42
Issue
3
Pages
814-831
ISSN
  • 0264-3758
  • 1468-5930
Cited by
12
References
4
Language
en
Funders
Uniwersytet Warszawski (501‐D117‐20‐4004310)

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