The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
AI Mimicry and Human Dignity: Chatbot Use as a Violation of Self‐Respect
Abstract
This article investigates how human interactions with AI‐powered chatbots may offend human dignity. Current chatbots, driven by large language models, mimic human linguistic behaviour but lack the moral and rational capacities essential for genuine interpersonal respect. Human beings are prone to anthropomorphize chatbots – indeed, chatbots appear to be deliberately designed to elicit that response. As a result, human beings' behaviour towards chatbots often resembles behaviours typical of interaction between moral agents. Drawing on a second‐personal, relational account of dignity, we argue that interacting with chatbots in this way is incompatible with the dignity of users. We show that, since second‐personal respect is premised on reciprocal recognition of second‐personal moral authority, behaving towards chatbots in ways that convey second‐personal respect is bound to misfire in morally problematic ways, given the lack of reciprocity. Consequently, such chatbot interactions amount to subtle but significant violations of self‐respect – the respect we are duty‐bound to show for our own dignity. We illustrate this by discussing four actual chatbot use cases (information retrieval, customer service, advising, and companionship), and propound that the increasing societal pressure to engage in such interactions with chatbots poses a hitherto underappreciated threat to human dignity.
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?
In the citing paper
“This framing aligns with work showing that dignity depends on how we relate to one another and how we acknowledge each other's claims and standing [131, 152].”
From Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narratives (2026) · cites this paper as [131]
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
Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674061200 · Cited by 5,664
The second-person standpoint: morality, respect, and accountability
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-4978 · Cited by 1,671
Computer power and human reason
Kuipers, B., McCarthy, J., & Weizenbaum, J. (1976) · ACM SIGART Bulletin · doi:10.1145/1045264.1045265 · Cited by 1,051
The nature and value of rights
Feinberg, J., & Narveson, J. (1970) · The Journal of Value Inquiry · doi:10.1007/bf00137935 · Cited by 1,040
FREEDOM AND RESENTMENT, AND OTHER ESSAYS
Durrant, M. (1975) · Philosophical Books · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0149.1975.tb01595.x · Cited by 999
My Chatbot Companion - a Study of Human-Chatbot Relationships
Skjuve, M., Følstad, A., Fostervold, K. I., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601 · Cited by 797 · cited 4×
“There is evidence that chatbot companions can be useful tools for tackling loneliness, social isolation, and other factors that negatively influence well-being (Skjuve et al., 2021).”
InfluentialDignity: Its History and Meaning
Rosen, M. (2012) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674065512 · Cited by 680
Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models
Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.04359 · Cited by 477
Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless?
Kim, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2012) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.006 · Cited by 462
(2013) · British Academy eBooks · doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197265642.001.0001 · Cited by 432
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Gabriel I. A.Manzini G.Keeling L. A.Hendricks V.Rieser H.Iqbal et al.“The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants.”2024.https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16244.
- Hill T., 1996, Dignity, Character, and Self‐Respect, 117
- Kant I., 1797, The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy, 353
- Margalit A., 1996, The Decent Society
- Schaber P., 2012, Menschenwürde
Cited by
Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narratives
Namvarpour, M. (., Brofsky, B., Medina, J. Y., Akter, M., & Razi, A. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790597 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- van der Rijt, J., Coelho Mollo, D., & Vaassen, B.
- Affiliations
- Umeå University Umeå Sweden
- ORCID
- Vaassen, Bram
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Philosophy
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2025-08-07
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 95-111
- ISSN
- 0264-3758
- 1468-5930
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 29
- Language
- en
- Licence
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
- doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm)
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.