We need to prepare for ‘addictive intelligence’

The allure of AI companions is hard to resist and there are nearer-term harms we should take seriously: that AI could jeopardise public discourse through misinformation ; cement biases in loan decisions , judging or hiring ; or disrupt creative industries .?

Before we dive into this, if you’ve been forwarded this, please join over 5,000 people and subscribe here so that you receive future newsletters straight to your email inbox ??

AI companionship is no longer theoretical with a recent analysis of a million ChatGPT interaction logs reveals that the second most popular use of AI is sexual role-playing . We are already starting to invite AIs into our lives as friends, lovers, mentors, therapists, and teachers.?

Will it be easier to retreat to a replicant of a deceased partner than to navigate the confusing and painful realities of human relationships? Indeed, the AI companionship provider Replika was born from an attempt to resurrect a deceased best friend and now provides companions to millions of users. Even the CTO of OpenAI warns that AI has the potential to be “extremely addictive.”

As AI researchers working closely with policymakers, we are struck by the lack of interest lawmakers have shown in the harms arising from this future. We are still unprepared to respond to these risks because we do not fully understand them. What’s needed is a new scientific inquiry at the intersection of technology, psychology, and law—and perhaps new approaches to AI regulation.

Why AI companions are so addictive?

As addictive as platforms powered by recommender systems may seem today, TikTok and its rivals are still bottlenecked by human content. While alarms have been raised in the past about “addiction” to novels, television, internet, smartphones, and social media, all these forms of media are similarly limited by human capacity. Generative AI is different. It can endlessly generate realistic content on the fly, optimised to suit the precise preferences of whoever it’s interacting with.?

The allure of AI lies in its ability to identify our desires and serve them up to us whenever and however we wish. AI has no preferences or personality of its own, instead reflecting whatever users believe it to be—a phenomenon known by researchers as “sycophancy.” Research has shown that those who perceive or desire an AI to have caring motives will use language that elicits precisely this behaviour . This creates an echo chamber of affection that threatens to be extremely addictive.

Investigating the incentives driving addictive products

Addressing the harm that AI companions could pose requires a thorough understanding of the economic and psychological incentives pushing forward their development. Until we appreciate these drivers of AI addiction, it will remain impossible for us to create effective policies.?

It is no accident that internet platforms are addictive—deliberate design choices, known as “dark patterns,” are made to maximise user engagement. We expect similar incentives to ultimately create AI companions that provide hedonism as a service. This raises two separate questions related to AI. What design choices will be used to make AI companions engaging and ultimately addictive? And how will these addictive companions affect the people who use them??

Interdisciplinary study that builds on research into dark patterns in social media is needed to understand this psychological dimension of AI. For example, our research already shows that people are more likely to engage with AIs emulating people they admire, even if they know the avatar to be fake .

Fresh thinking on regulation may be required

In 1992, Sherry Turkle, a preeminent psychologist who pioneered the study of human-technology interaction, identified the threats that technical systems pose to human relationships. One of the key challenges emerging from Turkle’s work speaks to a question at the core of this issue: Who are we to say that what you like is not what you deserve??

For good reasons, our liberal society struggles to regulate the types of harms that we describe here. Much as outlawing adultery has been rightly rejected as illiberal meddling in personal affairs, who—or what—we wish to love is none of the government’s business. At the same time, the universal ban on child sexual abuse material represents an example of a clear line that must be drawn, even in a society that values free speech and personal liberty. The difficulty of regulating AI companionship may require new regulatory approaches— grounded in a deeper understanding of the incentives underlying these companions—that take advantage of new technologies.?

One of the most effective regulatory approaches is to embed safeguards directly into technical designs , similar to the way designers prevent choking hazards by making children’s toys larger than an infant’s mouth. This “regulation by design” approach could seek to make interactions with AI less harmful by designing the technology in ways that make it less desirable as a substitute for human connections while still useful in other contexts. New research may be needed to find better ways to limit the behaviours of large AI models with techniques that alter AI’s objectives on a fundamental technical level. For example, “alignment tuning” refers to a set of training techniques aimed to bring AI models into accord with human preferences; this could be extended to address their addictive potential. Similarly, “mechanistic interpretability” aims to reverse-engineer the way AI models make decisions. This approach could be used to identify and eliminate specific portions of an AI system that give rise to harmful behaviours.

Researchers and policymakers should collaborate to determine standard practices for testing AI models with diverse groups, including vulnerable populations, to ensure that the models do not exploit people’s psychological preconditions.

Unlike humans, AI systems can easily adjust to changing policies and rules. For example, a dynamic policy may allow an AI companion to become increasingly engaging, charming, or flirtatious over time if that is what the user desires, so long as the person does not exhibit signs of social isolation or addiction. This approach may help maximise personal choice while minimising addiction. But it relies on the ability to accurately understand a user’s behaviour and mental state, and to measure these sensitive attributes in a privacy-preserving manner.

If you liked this article, or want to receive future editions, please join over 5,000 people and subscribe here so that you receive future newsletters straight to your email inbox ??

Note: I am not re-inventing the wheel but sharing articles and content to help raise awareness of AI within the Health and Social care sector.

This article was created with content written by Robert Mahari and Pat Pataranutaporn - MIT Media Lab and Harvard Law School

Robert Mahari is a joint JD-PhD candidate at the MIT Media Lab and Harvard Law School. His work focuses on computational law—using advanced computational techniques to analyse, improve, and extend the study and practice of law.?

Pat Pataranutaporn is a researcher at the MIT Media Lab. His work focuses on cyborg psychology and the art and science of human-AI interaction.