PreprintCited by 6Ethics and Social Impacts of AILiterary and Philosophical StudiesSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Beyond Biology: AI as Family and the Future of Human Bonds and Relationships

Open access
Mahajan, Prashant·2025

Abstract

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) evolves from a functional tool to a relational companion, society faces a transformative redefinition of family, kinship, and human identity. No longer limited to task automation, AI is increasingly embedded in emotionally significant roles, such as caregivers, companions, children, parents, and even partners. This paper critically examines the prospects and implications of AI as family by exploring the ethical, legal, cultural, and technological shifts required to integrate emotionally intelligent machines into intimate human relationships.Drawing on interdisciplinary literature and real-world developments, the study explores how AI-human relationships challenge foundational concepts such as emotional authenticity, autonomy, personhood, and the meaning of familial roles. Examples include eldercare robots, AI grief companions, AI generated memory avatars, and AI-driven parenting aides. The paper highlights both promises, including enhanced elder independence, emotional support, and personalized caregiving, and risks, such as emotional dependency, cognitive erosion, and the displacement of human-to-human intimacy.A critical analysis of global governance efforts by UNESCO, the OECD, NIST, the European Union, and the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI) reveals significant gaps in addressing AI’s emotional and domestic integration. The study argues for culturally adaptive legal frameworks, robust data protection, and urgent debates around AI personhood, particularly as AI systems gather sensitive affective data within private spaces.The paper concludes by asking whether humanity is designing AI to fulfill emotional needs, or unconsciously reshaping itself to accommodate machine companionship. It offers a set of ethical and regulatory recommendations for families, technologists, and policymakers to ensure that human dignity, agency, and relational depth are preserved. As the lines between biological and artificial relationships blur, the question is no longer if AI will enter the family, but whether society is truly prepared for the consequences of welcoming it home.

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 · 10.31219/osf.io/snh4w_v1

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • The relational experience with AI companions mimics care but cannot reciprocate it.

    “The result is a relational experience that mimics care but cannot reciprocate it”

    From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Mahajan 2025

    The abstract says AI technologies simulate caregiving, supporting the claim that AI companions can mimic care. Neither the abstract nor the retrieved Introduction passages say that AI cannot reciprocate care; the Introduction instead describes emotional resonance and AI-delivered care. The nonreciprocity claim is therefore unsupported by the passages available from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The relational experience with AI companions often reinforces dependence precisely because it never requires reciprocity.

    “an experience that often reinforces dependence precisely because it never requires reciprocity (Mahajan 2025).”

    From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Mahajan 2025

    The abstract identifies emotional dependency as a potential peril of AI companionship. It does not say that dependence often occurs or that it is reinforced because the relationship requires no reciprocity; a search for reciprocity found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mahajan, P.
Corresponding author
Mahajan, Prashant
Published
2025-03-13
OpenAlex
W4408408410
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
human-AI relationship, AI companions, legal personhood of AI, emotional dependence, human dignity, AI ethics, AI regulation, kinship, family roles

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