Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13

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

van der Rijt, Jan‐Willem, Coelho Mollo, Dimitri, Vaassen, Bram·2026·Journal of Applied Philosophy
DOI 10.1111/japp.70037
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/japp.70037

Cites

29 of 29 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 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.
  2. Hill T., 1996, Dignity, Character, and Self‐Respect, 117
  3. Kant I., 1797, The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy, 353
  4. Margalit A., 1996, The Decent Society
  5. Schaber P., 2012, Menschenwürde

Cited by

See all 13

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
DOI
10.1111/japp.70037
Cited by
13
References
29
Language
en
Licence

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.