The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Technically Love: The Evolution of Human-AI Romance Discourse on Reddit
Abstract
Human-AI romantic relationships are increasingly common, yet little is understood about how public discourse around them emerges and shifts over time. Prior research has examined user experiences and ethical concerns, but lacks longitudinal analyses of user-initiated public discussions. We address this gap by analyzing a high-precision dataset of 3,383 self-disclosed romantic companion AI posts from Reddit (2017-2025), using topic modeling and temporal statistical analysis to identify dominant themes and their evolution over time. We find significant topic drift, with discussions moving away from positive intimate relationships toward platform governance, technical issues, and real-world consequences. These shifts highlight a transition in how human-AI romance is framed-moving from private experiences to technical mediation and regulation-with implications for the design and governance of companion AI systems.
Verifying this paper
8 of 9 steps done · this page updates itself — you can leave and come back
- Registry recordVerified
- Full textFetching the open-access text — a few minutes for a paper we haven’t read before
- Reference listNot fetched yet
- Reference checkNot run yet for this paper
- StatisticsNeeds the full text
- ClaimsNeeds the full text
- Cited sourcesNeeds claims to check
- Self-checkNeeds the full text
- VerificationFindings verified
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Because Chang et al.'s filtering was designed to isolate self-disclosed romantic posts, their dataset cannot answer to what extent discourse about AI companions describes a user's own relationship relative to discussing other topics.
“More fundamentally, because their filtering was designed to isolate self-disclosed romantic posts, their dataset cannot answer a basic question we address here, namely, to what extent does discourse about AI companion describe a user's own relationship relative to discussing other topics?”
From Me and My Bot: What Users Talk About in AI Companion Communities on Reddit (2026) · cites this paper as Chang et al. (2026)
Chang, Huh-Yoo, and Razi (2026) analyzed over 3,300 self-disclosed romantic AI companion posts from 24 Reddit subreddits spanning 2017 to 2025.
“Most directly relevant is the work of Chang, Huh-Yoo, and Razi (2026) who analyzed over 3,300 self-disclosed romantic AI companion posts from 24 Reddit subreddits spanning 2017 to 2025.”
From Me and My Bot: What Users Talk About in AI Companion Communities on Reddit (2026) · cites this paper as Chang, Huh-Yoo, and Razi (2026)
Chang et al. found that explicitly positive intimate relationship content constituted only 6% of the discourse.
“Change et al. found that explicitly positive intimate relationship content constituted only 6% of the discourse.”
From Me and My Bot: What Users Talk About in AI Companion Communities on Reddit (2026) · cites this paper as Chang et al. (2026)
Chang et al. documented significant temporal drift: over time discussions moved away from experiential intimacy toward governance concerns, technical infrastructure, and personal consequences.
“They also documented significant temporal drift: over time as discussions moved away from experiential intimacy toward governance concerns, technical infrastructure, and personal consequences.”
From Me and My Bot: What Users Talk About in AI Companion Communities on Reddit (2026) · cites this paper as Chang et al. (2026)
The paper's findings replicate the pattern documented by Chang et al. (2026) that explicitly romantic AI companion discourse on Reddit was dominated by technical issues, platform governance, and disturbing bot behavior rather than intimate relationship content, within communities organized around specific platforms rather than the topic of AI romance broadly.
“Our findings replicate that pattern within communities organized around specific platforms rather than the topic of AI romance broadly.”
From Me and My Bot: What Users Talk About in AI Companion Communities on Reddit (2026) · cites this paper as Chang et al. (2026)
Chang et al. found that the overwhelming majority of posts addressed technical issues, platform governance and moderation, and unwanted or disturbing bot behavior.
“The overwhelming majority of posts addressed technical issues, platform governance and moderation, and unwanted or disturbing bot behavior.”
From Me and My Bot: What Users Talk About in AI Companion Communities on Reddit (2026) · cites this paper as Chang et al. (2026)
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
Namvarpour, M. (., Pauwels, H., & Razi, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757548 · Cited by 45
Self-citationHow chatbots perceive sexting by adolescents
Ricon, T. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100068 · Cited by 15
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Me and My Bot: What Users Talk About in AI Companion Communities on Reddit
Fabes, R. A. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.00748
Metadata
- Authors
- Chang, T., Huh-Yoo, J., & Razi, A.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- arXiv
- 2604.15333
- References
- 2
- Type
- Preprint
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
