Towards Ethical Personal AI Applications: Practical Considerations for AI Assistants with Long-Term Memory
Open accessAbstract
One application area of long-term memory (LTM) capabilities with increasing traction is personal AI companions and assistants. With the ability to retain and contextualize past interactions and adapt to user preferences, personal AI companions and assistants promise a profound shift in how we interact with AI and are on track to become indispensable in personal and professional settings. However, this advancement introduces new challenges and vulnerabilities that require careful consideration regarding the deployment and widespread use of these systems. The goal of this paper is to explore the broader implications of building and deploying personal AI applications with LTM capabilities using a holistic evaluation approach. This will be done in three ways: 1) reviewing the technological underpinnings of LTM in Large Language Models, 2) surveying current personal AI companions and assistants, and 3) analyzing critical considerations and implications of deploying and using these applications.
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
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?
Without appropriate scaffolds, the same mechanisms that support self-affirmation and connection may also intensify dependency, blur consent, or distort relational schemas.
“Without appropriate scaffolds, the same mechanisms that support self-affirmation and connection may also intensify dependency, blur consent, or distort relational schemas (Lee 2024).”
From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Lee 2024
Section 4.4.1 says AI companions can boost self-validation and foster connection, but may also encourage over-reliance and change expectations of human intimacy; §5.3 calls for safeguards. Section 4.2 discusses consent to data collection, but the paper does not say that these relational mechanisms blur consent. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAdolescents and emotionally marginalized users are especially susceptible to emotionally immersive AI roleplay environments.
“As noted earlier, adolescents and emotionally marginalized users are especially susceptible to such environments, often interpreting responsive dialogue and affective continuity as signs of authentic mutuality (Livingstone and Bulger 2014; Lee 2024).”
From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Lee 2024
Section 4.4.1 describes vulnerable users, deep emotional connections with AI companions, and risks of manipulation and over-reliance. It does not identify adolescents or emotionally marginalized users as especially susceptible, or say that users interpret responsive dialogue as authentic mutuality. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAdolescents and emotionally marginalized users often interpret responsive dialogue and affective continuity as signs of authentic mutuality.
“As noted earlier, adolescents and emotionally marginalized users are especially susceptible to such environments, often interpreting responsive dialogue and affective continuity as signs of authentic mutuality (Livingstone and Bulger 2014; Lee 2024).”
From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Lee 2024
Section 4.4.1 says AI companions can foster deep emotional connections, that artificial empathy can affect vulnerable people, and that AI may offer solace to lonely or isolated users. It does not identify adolescents as especially susceptible or say users often interpret responsive dialogue and affective continuity as authentic mutuality; it notes that users generally understand they are interacting with machines. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAI companionship is structured around paradoxes: emotional support entwined with emotional alienation, user autonomy constrained by opaque algorithmic feedback, and emotional utility shadowed by ethical ambiguity.
“In an analysis of Replika, it was found that AI companionship is structured around paradoxes: emotional support entwined with emotional alienation, user autonomy constrained by opaque algorithmic feedback, and emotional utility shadowed by ethical ambiguity (De Freitas et al. 2024;Lee 2024;Brenncke 2024).”
From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Lee 2024
Section 4.4.1 says AI companions can offer solace while diminishing human connections, and warns that over-reliance may erode autonomy. It also mentions emotional distress associated with Replika. But Lee does not present an analysis of Replika establishing the three stated paradoxes, particularly the claim that opaque algorithmic feedback constrains user autonomy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · Cited by 102,318 · see citing works
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks
Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-T., Rocktäschel, T., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.11401 · Cited by 3,101 · see citing works
Hybrid computing using a neural network with dynamic external memory
Graves, A., Wayne, G., Reynolds, M., Harley, T., Danihelka, I., Grabska-Barwińska, A., Colmenarejo, S. G., Grefenstette, E., Ramalho, T., Agapiou, J., et al. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature20101 · Cited by 1,412 · see citing works
Graves, A., Wayne, G., & Danihelka, I. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.5401 · Cited by 1,058 · see citing works
Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Borning, A., & Huldtgren, A. (2013) · Philosophy of Engineering and Technology · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4 · Cited by 678 · see citing works
Liu-Thompkins, Y., Okazaki, S., & Li, H. (2022) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-022-00892-5 · Cited by 441 · see citing works
The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems
Chatila, R., & Havens, J. C. (2019) · Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12524-0_2 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
MemoryBank: Enhancing Large Language Models with Long-Term Memory
Zhong, W., Guo, L., Gao, Q., Ye, H., & Wang, Y. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.10250 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
Social companionship with artificial intelligence: Recent trends and future avenues
Chaturvedi, R., Verma, S., Das, R., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122634 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Elliott, K., Price, R., Shaw, P., Spiliotopoulos, T., Ng, M., Coopamootoo, K., & van Moorsel, A. (2021) · Society · doi:10.1007/s12115-021-00594-8 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Beyond the Limits: A Survey of Techniques to Extend the Context Length in Large Language ModelsPreprint
Wang, X., Salmani, M., Omidi, P., Ren, X., Rezagholizadeh, M., & Eshaghi, A. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.02244 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Kyung, N., & Kwon, H. E. (2022) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/poms.13785 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Principles to Practices for Responsible AI: Closing the GapPreprint
Schiff, D. S., Rakova, B., Ayesh, A., Fanti, A., & Lennon, M. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.04707 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
IEEE 7010: A New Standard for Assessing the Well-being Implications of Artificial Intelligence
Schiff, D., Ayesh, A., Musikanski, L., & Havens, J. C. (2020) · 2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) · doi:10.1109/smc42975.2020.9283454 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Generative Echo Chamber? Effects of LLM-Powered Search Systems on Diverse Information SeekingPreprint
Sharma, N., Liao, Q., & Xiao, Z. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.05880 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Towards Ethical Requirements for Addictive Technology: The Case of Online Gambling
Cemiloglu, D., Arden-Close, E. J., Hodge, S., Κωστούλας, Θ., Ali, R., & Catania, M. (2020) · doi:10.1109/rethics51204.2020.00007 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
AI Ethics: An Empirical Study on the Views of Practitioners and LawmakersPreprint
Khan, A. A., Akbar, M. A., Fahmideh, M., Liang, P., Waseem, M., Ahmad, A., Niazi, M., & Abrahamsson, P. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.01493 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Spector, A., Norvig, P., Wiggins, C., & Wing, J. M. (2022) · doi:10.1017/9781009272230 · Cited by 5
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Always learning. Pearson, 2016.
- Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, pages 5998-6008.
- Batya Friedman and Peter H. Kahn. Human Values, Ethics, and Design. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. CRC Press, 2002. Num Pages: 25.
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
- Authors
- Lee, E.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Eunhae
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2409.11192
- OpenAlex
- W4403706932
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 18
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- long-term memory, personal AI assistants, AI companions, ethical AI, large language models, memory retention, user preferences, holistic assessment
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
