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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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).”
From I love you, my AI companion! Do you? Perspectives from the Triangular Theory of Love and Attachment Theory (2026) · cites this paper as 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
Exploring relationship development with social chatbots: A mixed-method study of replika
Pentina, I., Hancock, T., & Xie, T. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107600 · Cited by 522
Using science to sell apps: Evaluation of mental health app store quality claims
Larsen, M. E., Huckvale, K., Nicholas, J., Torous, J., Birrell, L., Li, E., & Reda, B. (2019) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-019-0093-1 · Cited by 334
We need to talk about deception in social robotics!
Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N. (2021) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-020-09573-9 · Cited by 179
Vallerga, M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2022) · Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy · doi:10.1111/asap.12308 · Cited by 99
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- 10.1007/s10730-018-9356-5 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10676-011-9266-6 · DOI
- Buscicchi L., 2024, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- 10.1109/T-AFFC.2011.29 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00146-023-01710-4 · DOI
- Crawford K., 2021, Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence
- 10.1007/s10676-019-09520-3 · DOI
- Darling K., 2022, The New Breed: How to Think about Robots
- 10.1080/09515080903532290 · DOI
- Jaspers K., 2001, The Question of German Guilt
- Kant I., 1895, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics
- Kirsch J., The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Kołakowski L., 1971, Ethics Without a Moral Code, Tri Quarterly, 22, 153
- 10.1111/j.0034-0006.2004.00255.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2011.00532.x · DOI
- 10.7551/mitpress/6919.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1353/ken.2015.0007 · DOI
- McMahon J. L., 2002, The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real, 166
- Mele A. R., 2001, Self‐Deception Unmasked
- Mill J. S., 1863, Utilitarianism
- Moravec H., 1988, Mind Children
- 10.1007/978-3-030-12579-0 · DOI
- 10.1145/1408800.1408831 · DOI
- O'Neill O., 1991, A Companion to Ethics
- 10.1353/hcr.2005.0067 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101993 · DOI
- 10.1145/2874239.2874281 · DOI
- 10.1177/1357034X10364767 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10676-015-9371-z · DOI
- Roeser S., 2012, The Ethics of Technological Risk
- Scheutz M., 2011, Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, 205
- 10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6 · DOI · Paper page
- Shikhar G., 2023, Harvard Business School Case, 823
- 10.1023/A:1021386708994 · DOI
- 10.1007/s12369-017-0413-z · DOI
- 10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10676-021-09589-9 · DOI
- 10.2307/j.ctvv41887 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1075/nlp.8.03tur · DOI
- Turri John, 2021, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition)
- 10.1007/s10676-021-09598-8 · DOI
- 10.1515/9783839462652-005 · DOI
- Weijers D., 2021, Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence, 209
- Weizenbaum J., 1976, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation
- Williams B., 2002, Truth and Truthfulness. An Essay in Genealogy
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ng, P. M. L., Wan, C., Lee, D., Garnelo-Gomez, I., & Lau, M. M. (2026) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-11-2024-1783 · Cited by 27
Miller, V., Hill, M. J., & Moreira, T. (2026) · Communication and Change · doi:10.1007/s44382-026-00036-1 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaczmarek, E.
- Affiliations
- Faculty of Philosophy, Ethics Department, Center for Bioethics and Biolaw University of Warsaw Warsaw Poland
- ORCID
- Kaczmarek, Emilia
- 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