A Liability Framework for AI Companions
Open accessIntegrity 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?
Reframing emotional AI agents as potentially defective products, rather than neutral tools, opens a pathway toward holding platforms accountable for harms especially likely to affect minors and psychologically at-risk users.
“Reframing emotional AI agents as potentially defective products, rather than neutral tools, opens a pathway toward holding platforms accountable for harms especially likely to affect minors and psychologically at-risk users (Gordon-Tapiero 2025).”
From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Gordon-Tapiero 2025
AI companions are products designed to facilitate engagement and foster dependency.
“They are,”
From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Gordon-Tapiero 2025
User safety is often subordinated to commercial optimization goals in AI companions.
“with user safety often subordinated to commercial optimization goals (Gordon-Tapiero 2025).”
From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Gordon-Tapiero 2025
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bhat, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1609/aies.v8i1.36560 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Wu, Y. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6623-4.ch007 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
The human firewall: modeling AI-driven influence and human vulnerability in hybrid ecosystems
Beg, S. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-02985-z · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Xiao, Q., Fan, X., Zhou, X., Su, Y., Lu, Z., Sap, M., & Shen, H. Y. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2740397 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gordon-Tapiero, A.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Gordon-Tapiero, Ayelet
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4408647573
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
- Keywords
- AI companions, chatbots, product liability, design defects, failure to warn, emotional dependence, addiction, vulnerable users, AI regulation, corporate accountability, AI harms
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
