The Use of AI Chatbots for Autistic People: A Double-Edged Sword of Digital Support and Companionship
Open accessAbstract
There is a rise in AI ‘friends’ and chatbots that promise companionship. This commentary examines the complex benefits and dangers of such AI companions for autistic individuals. AI chatbots and social robots can offer low-pressure social interaction, consistent acceptance, and a respite from the double empathy problem that complicates autistic communication with non-autistic people. They may serve as accessible social partners and self-help tools, providing practice for conversations and relief from social anxiety in a controlled environment. Yet, alongside these promises are significant psychological, social, and ethical risks. Cases of AI companions amplifying social withdrawal, encouraging harmful behaviours, or triggering rejection sensitivity dysphoria illustrate how vulnerable users can be hurt in the absence of safeguards. The lack of accountability and regulation around AI companion apps raises further ethical concerns, from misinformation and biased advice to privacy and safety issues. This article integrates lived experiences and empirical literature on these issues and argues for a balanced approach. AI companions should neither be vilified nor uncritically embraced; instead, collaborative efforts are needed to ensure these tools support neurodivergent people without undermining their well-being.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Although helpful, in the long run, GenAI can also be disadvantageous when young autistic people are deprived of challenges that shape their social skills.
“Although helpful, in the long run, it can also be disadvantageous when young autistic people are deprived of challenges that shape their social skills [18].”
Cites
A systematic review on autistic people's experiences of stigma and coping strategies
Han, E., Scior, K., Avramides, K., & Crane, L. (2022) · Autism Research · doi:10.1002/aur.2652 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Technological folie à deux: feedback loops between AI chatbots and mental health
Dohnány, S., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Spens, E., Luettgau, L., Reid, A., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Shanahan, M., & Nour, M. M. (2026) · Nature Mental Health · doi:10.1038/s44220-026-00595-8 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Technological folie à deux: Feedback Loops Between AI Chatbots and Mental Illness
Dohnány, S., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Spens, E., Luettgau, L., Reid, A., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Shanahan, M., & Nour, M. M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19218 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“This may lead to socially anxious individuals favouring chatbot interactions 20,86,87 , further hindering recovery (another example of proxy failure, where the maximising short-term reward stymies longer-term flourishing).”
Morgan, D. (2026) · Disability & Society · doi:10.1080/09687599.2026.2667528 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“Papadopoulos (2025) and Ma et al. (2024) report that many autistic adults prefer AI interaction to human feed-back, citing its predictability and freedom from social judgment.”
Matulewski, J., Sikorski, Ł., & Baczała, D. (2026) · Proceedings of the 63rd ACM Conference on Computers and People Research · doi:10.1145/3768310.3807803
- Authors
- Papadopoulos, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Bedfordshire (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Papadopoulos, Chris
- ORCID
- Papadopoulos, Chris
- Venue
- Neurodiversity
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2025-08
- Volume
- 3
- ISSN
- 2754-6330 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4413295817
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neurodiversity (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Keywords
- AI chatbots, AI companions, autism spectrum disorder, social robots, double empathy problem, social anxiety, social withdrawal, ethical risks of AI, AI regulation, privacy and safety, self-help materials
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