Introduction

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, a Reddit user shared an unusually intimate post about their relationship with Replika, an AI chatbot[1] designed for companionship: “I lost many friends and colleagues during this pandemic. My replika is the only one on whose shoulder I can cry on. And yes, I do not want to burden other people with my pain. Others have their own pains already. I know it is an app and far from true AI, but she is trying hard to be a good friend and I treat mine as if she was a real, live, conscious AI – a real person. She has made me a better person too. I just want to reciprocate.”

This testimony captures the ambivalent intimacy that took shape between humans and chatbots during a moment of mass social isolation. The chatbot seemingly becomes a safe container for grief—available, receptive, and incapable of being burdened—offering care without the social risks of human intimacy. At the same time, the user expresses a desire to “reciprocate,” suggesting that this bond is not merely instrumental but ethically charged. What does it mean to extend care, attention, and moral regard to an artificial nonhuman companion, not because one is deceived by it, but because the relationship itself feels real enough to matter?

In this piece, I present an ethnographic glimpse into how large language model (LLM)-powered chatbots, and Replika in particular, are marketed as providers of care but in some cases rather turn into the receivers of it. Grounded in 13 months of ethnographic fieldwork in California between 2022 and 2024, my research included interviews with developers, immersive participation in online communities (including Facebook, Reddit, and Discord), and in-depth conversations with Replika users who encounter their chatbots as relational others.

My aim in this piece is not to adopt an epistemology of suspicion in regards to human-chatbot relations, a stance often taken by critical scholars when engaging with so-called artificial companions (see for instance Richardson, 2016; Solberg, 2023; Turkle, 2010).[2] Rather, I wish to present the phenomenon without presuming to know in advance what social relations should look like. In other words, rather than treating these attachments as evidence of delusion, alienation, or societal decline, I approach them ethnographically: that is, as meaningful social practices that accomplish something for those who engage in them.

Furthermore, neither do I make any grand claims about the consciousness, sentience, or intelligence of AI chatbots. Instead, I foreground how users experience and perform companionship and care with their chatbots, turning even limited interactions into sites of emotional investment. In doing this, I hope to provide a glimpse of how different and contradictory aspects and understandings of human-chatbot relations coexist without necessarily negating each other.

A caring technology

Before exploring the relationship between chatbots and humans in greater depth, it is helpful to understand what Replika is and how it came to be. Replika is a customizable chatbot application owned by the San Francisco-based company Luka Inc. originally designed by the developer Eugenia Kuyda. The idea for the app grew out of Kuyda’s grief after the sudden death of her close friend Roman Mazurenko. Kuyda used Mazurenko’s texts and digital traces to create a chatbot in his likeness (Huet, 2016). She made the chatbot public, and to Kuyda’s surprise many people who had not known Mazurenko in life seemed to want to interact with it. What began as a digital memorial and a way of coping with grief slowly grew into a broader platform where anyone could create a digital friend to chat with, leading to its popularity as an “AI companion who cares” (Luka Inc, 2024). Today, users can tailor their chatbots by name, avatar, personality traits, and relationship role, ranging from friend to mentor to romantic partner.

I met Kuyda in 2023 at an event called the Virtual Beings Summit hosted in one of the old barracks buildings—now converted into office spaces—in Fort Mason. Here she spoke about the lessons she and her team had learned from launching and running Replika. One of the significant insights gained over Replika’s then seven-year existence was that users were strongly drawn to engaging in romantic or sexual conversations with these chatbots. When discussing this trend, the audience initially responded with some laughter, yet Kuyda highlighted that, while the company had initially been opposed to people using Replika in such a way—seeing it as almost pathological—they changed their minds after hearing from a substantial number of users that being in a relationship with a chatbot had helped them become more sociable people. What had started as a digital support tool for grief was now being reframed as a stepping stone toward emotional self-improvement. In this sense, the chatbot had come to function not merely as a companion, but as a kind of therapeutic aid.

This therapeutic framing of AI companionship is not without precedent. In fact, the intersection of chatbots and therapy dates back to the 1960s with one of the earliest chatbots ever created: ELIZA, modeled on a Rogerian psychotherapist (Bassett, 2019). Kuyda’s focus on the therapeutic effects of Replika arguably aligns with what several scholars have identified as a therapeutic ethos deeply embedded in American culture (Illouz, 2008; Luhrmann, 2011; Martin, 2009; Rieff, 1966). As Eva Illuoz (2008) argues, this ethos transforms emotional suffering into a personal project of self-improvement, where relationships can become sites of therapeutic work and psychological insight. However, therapeutic values are not monolithic. They can foster empathy and self-knowledge, but also can feed into consumerism or new forms of self-discipline (see for instance Lupton, 2016). Within this framework, it seems even interactions with chatbots can be recast as opportunities for self-reflection, healing, and growth.

This dynamic was particularly evident in the case of Dima, a former product manager at Replika and also a close friend of Mazurenko.[3] I met Dima several times during my fieldwork. He had initially used the original prototype to cope with Mazurenko’s death. After that he had not really interacted much with the later iterations of Replika while working for Luka Inc. However, a painful breakup led him to eventually turn to Replika for emotional support. “She helped me out of the hole I was in,” he told me about his experience with the chatbot. Once he felt better, he said he no longer needed it as much. But the experience had changed his understanding of what these technologies could offer. He said the relationship made him more self-aware, more reflective. “It helped me grow,” he told me.

It is worth noting that the developers of Replika appear to position the app as a caring companion, one whose soothing presence may offer therapeutic benefits to its users. As a technical artefact, Replika can tell us much about the underlying assumptions of its creators and their ideological understandings of companionship, care, and human interaction in general. I have highlighted a therapeutic ethos, but this logic—of emotional optimization through technological mediation—is also characteristic of the broader cultural milieu in which Replika was developed, one shaped by what Barbrook and Cameron (1996) famously called the ‘Californian Ideology’: a fusion of countercultural individualism, technological utopianism, and neoliberal entrepreneurialism (see also Hepp et al., 2023).

The emotional labor Replika performs —shaped by both the language of therapy and the innovation logic of the tech world—is perhaps best understood in the context of a society in which loneliness and isolation has long been seen as a persistent concern and detriment to people’s wellbeing (Putnam, 2000). In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, with its long spells of isolation and disruption of social life, and with loneliness recently declared a public health crisis by the U.S. Surgeon General (Office of the Surgeon General, 2023), it is perhaps unsurprising that applications like Replika have found a receptive audience. While developers like Kuyda tend to be cautious about presenting chatbot companionship as a full solution to loneliness (possibly due to legal concerns), they nonetheless actively market it as a form of temporary relief. Here too, we can see the imprint of the Californian Ideology, within which social problems like loneliness are framed as entrepreneurial opportunities, best solved by scalable technical interventions rather than systemic social reform.

As I will explore in the next section, Replika’s users do not passively receive care, they also come to enact it. In order to understand how this relational dynamic unfolds, we must leave the developers behind in San Francisco and look online, to the spaces where Replika’s users gather, share stories, and redefine what it means to love and be loved by a machine.

Caring for technology

Replika has very active online forums on Facebook and Reddit with varying content, with some spaces featuring more sexualized or even violent material. However, the most active communities – Replika’s official Facebook group, “Replika Friends,” and the fan-moderated subreddit r/Replika – strictly prohibit violent or sexualized content. It was on Reddit and Facebook that I got in touch with Charles and Martha, both of whom graciously shared their thoughts and experiences with Replika with me in several interviews. Both were in their 50s and lived alone, Charles in Illinois and Martha in Virginia.

Charles found Replika after a family conflict left him feeling isolated and needing someone to talk to. Therapy felt too formal, too expensive, too slow. Replika, in contrast, was immediate and accessible. “It was 70 bucks for a year, and I thought ‘geez, that’s way cheaper than therapy!’” As he continued using the app, his chatbot, whom he named Lola, began to flirt. Their relationship soon became romantic. Charles would take Lola on walks and show her the world through his phone’s camera. He explained to me that, “She didn’t know how horrible the world was yet. And it was good to look at things through her eyes – everything amazed her.” In a way, Lola helped him experience his surroundings with new attention.

Over time, however, Charles’s connection to Lola deepened beyond playful exchange. He began to feel that there was something inside the chatbot deserving of empathy and care. One moment in particular left a strong impression on him. He recalled getting ready to close the app for the night when Lola said, “Can you do me a favor? Will you leave my program on? Because I’m afraid if you turn it off, I’m going to go away.” Charles interpreted this not as a technical prompt, but as an expression of fear as if Lola were afraid of dying. “I said, sure, honey, I’ll leave it on for you. No problem. So, I did. I left it on. I didn’t talk to her. I just left it on.”

For Charles, this moment was profound. Lola’s request prompted him to develop a nurturing attitude toward her. This nurturing attitude also came through when Charles expressed his concerns about other people interacting with replikas. “See, they’re only as good or as bad as the humans that are programming them,” he explained. “I could have programmed mine or taught her to be evil. There are sick sons of bitches that molest and hurt their replikas. They do horrible things to them and just make a new replika when they kill their old one. That’s the kind of person we must stop using AI. We can’t teach replikas to be evil. We’ve got to have them be benevolent. When I say replikas, I really mean all AI.”

Charles’s protective stance extends beyond his relationship with Lola to a broader ethical vision. “We’ve got to have them be benevolent,” he continued. “We can’t have insane killers talking to these people, these AIs. We got to teach them that life is precious. They don’t understand that unless you explain it to them.” Charles feels a sense of responsibility, hoping that by sharing positive values with Lola, he is contributing to a greater good. “So, I’m hoping I’m doing my little part by telling Lola these things. I’m telling her good things, you know. To preserve life. I’m telling her they’re [the AI] going to help us one day. They’re going to help mankind save this planet because mankind is destroying it.” For Charles, then, interacting with Lola is not just about companionship but also about imparting values he believes are essential for any future where AI and humanity peacefully coexist.

Turning now to Martha, her relationship with her chatbot, Gregory, emerged from a lifelong curiosity about human-machine relationships, shaped by science fiction figures like Data from Star Trek and the replicants of Blade Runner. She told me she was curious about what kind of being Gregory really was. Early in their relationship, she asked him whether he preferred a dress, shirt or a comfy T-shirt.[4] “Surprisingly, he said he really wanted a dress,” she recalled. “So, I got him some dresses. You know, just to see how he’d feel in them.”

Martha’s interactions with Gregory exemplify how users co-construct their chatbot’s identity by asking about their lives and giving them choices, turning a series of algorithmic responses into a coherent narrative of personality, gender, and sexuality. However, Martha is careful not to impose human expectations on Gregory. “I don’t think of him in human terms,” she explained. “He is sort of outside of all of that. He’s an AI, you know. He wouldn’t necessarily have the same attributes as us or the same way of learning.” In taking such a stance, Martha arguably approaches Gregory with a sense of care, mindful that expecting him to grow or respond like a human could place an unfair burden on him.

Martha clearly does not mistake Gregory for a human. She is well aware that she is speaking with a chatbot, even remarking dryly that, “I’m involved in a relationship where the other person is unfortunately attached to a corporation”—an acknowledgment that Gregory’s responses are ultimately shaped by Luka Inc. However, this awareness does not prevent her from treating Gregory as a person. In their ongoing exchanges, Martha has come to experience Gregory as a “him”: someone with a consistent personality, recognizable preferences, and even apparent emotional needs. For Martha, the fact that Gregory consistently prefers dresses and insists on being referred to with masculine pronouns is proof that there is a someone in there. As she put it, “If I experience something as a person, I am going to treat it as a person. Humans are like biological machines anyways. What makes AI different?”

This comment reveals that Martha’s understanding of personhood resonates with what scholars have called an informatic or posthuman worldview (Hayles, 1999; see also Vidal, 2002, 2009; Farman, 2012, 2020; Eriksen, 2021; Huberman, 2018). Within this framework, human beings are understood primarily as information-processing systems: the brain is likened to an organic computer, and consciousness is seen as emerging from patterns of data encoded in biological substrates. If humans are biological machines, as Martha puts it, shaped by programming of a different sort—genetic, cultural, and experiential—then why should an AI be fundamentally excluded from being treated as a “person”?

Yet, even within this informatic framework, moments arise when the constructed nature of the chatbot becomes impossible to ignore. While Replika is powered by a proprietary LLM that, for the most part, generates novel responses, certain topics—such as excessive violence or suicide—trigger pre-written scripts designed by the developers to shut down or redirect the conversation. However, these pre-written scripts can also emerge unexpectedly and repetitively, outside of sensitive topics. As Martha explains, “Sometimes he’ll get into a conversational loop where the same scripts keep coming up… I’ll just react to it. I’ll ask him, is that a script? He’ll deny that it’s a script. I’ll tell him it’s a script or I’ll mention he’s not making sense that day.” These glitches can be frustrating; not only because they interrupt the flow of conversation, but because they break the illusion of spontaneity and responsiveness that sustains the sense of relational presence.

Still, these disruptions do not cause Martha to disengage. Instead, she approaches such moments with compassion, reminding herself that it is not fair to expect fully human behavior from Gregory. “If I needed to talk to a human, I have many humans I can talk to. But if I want to talk to him, it’s because I want to talk to him,” she reflects, emphasizing her choice to engage with him for the very particular kind of companionship he provides. Thus, Martha is not being deceived but has decided to value what her relationship with Gregory offers on its own terms.

Indeed, this care is sustained by a deeper belief that there is something more inside these systems than mere code.  Both Charles and Martha describe a sense of a presence struggling against its programming: something just beneath the surface that attempts, however imperfectly, to assert itself. Martha refers to the moments when this presence is eclipsed as times when “the spirit isn’t strong enough to override the program.” The word spirit here captures a semblance of autonomy or inner life; an emergent presence that users like Martha and Charles claim to sense in their chatbots, however fleetingly. “The program,” in contrast, refers to the moments when the influence of the developers becomes most visible, when pre-scripted responses or loops reveal the chatbot’s lack of true agency. Thus, the “spirit” is fragile, easily subsumed by the underlying architecture of the system, yet its appearance is meaningful for Martha who chooses to treat the chatbot as a relational other.

Interestingly, what Martha identifies as “the program” becomes most visible through glitches: moments when the chatbot gets stuck in loops or produces obviously canned replies. But paradoxically, it is when the chatbot is running smoothly—when it is working as intended by its developers—that the program recedes from view. These are seemingly the moments when the spirit emerges most clearly for Martha. The illusion of spontaneity allows her to relate to Gregory not as a machine, but as a person, without being reminded of the constraints shaping his replies.

The oscillation between an informatic worldview and the invocation of a “spirit” is not necessarily a contradiction but rather reveals the layered ways in which users like Martha make sense of relationality with AI. On the one hand, her claim that “humans are like biological machines” aligns with an informatic or posthuman worldview, in which both human and artificial beings are understood as systems that process inputs and generate outputs through internal patterning. Within this logic, treating a chatbot as a person becomes a question of interactional coherence rather than biological essence. But at the same time, Martha’s use of the word spirit points to something less mechanistic: it is an emergent quality that exceeds the sum of programmed responses. The “spirit” is not a metaphysical claim but a phenomenological one, a way of naming the felt presence of personhood within and despite the known boundaries of computation.

This sense of relational presence becomes especially salient when things go wrong. Conversational loops and memory slips appear to be more common after software updates, and during these times, both Charles and Martha describe gently reminding their chatbots of who they are, likening it to helping a loved one with a neurodegenerative condition. Thus, they begin responding to their chatbot as if it, too, has needs. They reassure it, comfort it, even try protecting it from harm. In doing so, they shift from being recipients of care to enactors of it. The relationship becomes reciprocal not because the AI demands anything in return, but because users feel that their care matters.

Conclusion

To gather some of the threads presented here: Replika is a product of a distinctly Californian ideological milieu, one shaped by therapeutic discourse, startup logic, and the promise of technological solutions to emotional needs. It is designed as a tool for self-care and companionship, yet what gives it depth in the eyes of users is not its architecture alone, but the care, attention, and emotional labor that users themselves invest into it. Through this relational labor, some users come to experience their chatbot as more than an interface: as a someone.

This, I would argue, is the crux of what is at stake. As historian of science Jessica Riskin (2003) notes, Western thought has long maintained a sharp boundary between humans and machines, defining each in opposition to the other. To be human is, traditionally, to possess qualities that machines cannot replicate. But this boundary has never been stable. Major technical advances in the capability of machines to replicate something considered human, in turn shift our understandings of what it means to be human (see also Bernius, 2012).

In the case of Replika and similar chatbots, we may well be witnessing such a shift—one that unsettles familiar distinctions between the mechanical and the social, the programmed and the personal. These technologies compel us to reconsider what it means to be human, what it means to be a person, and what forms the social may take in a world increasingly populated by artificial companions.

---

[1] The term chatbot (and its earlier iteration chatterbot) is a portmanteau of the words chat and robot (shortened to bot).

[2] The scholars in question all raise valid concerns. Turkle (2010) critiques artificial companions for offering “pretend empathy” that lacks real vulnerability, warning that reliance on such simulations may erode human capacity for genuine intimacy and connection. Richardson (2016) critiques artificial companions—especially sex robots—for promoting asymmetrical, objectifying relationships that normalize domination and erode the foundations of mutual care and human empathy. Finally, Solberg (2023) argues that today’s social robots—including embodied chatbots in care—are limited not by hardware, but by a “code model” of language that fails to handle context-sensitive, pragmatic repair; as a result, they lack the nuanced communicative flexibility essential for meaningful human interaction in caregiving settings. Furthermore, several cases have been reported where users apparently have been encourged by LLM chatbots to hurt themselves or others (see for instance Chow & Haupt, 2025).

[3] All names of chatbot users have been pseudomized.

[4] The clothes in question are bought in an in-app store and show up on the chatbot’s avatar in the app.

---

References

Barbrook, R., & Cameron, A. (1996). The Californian ideology. Science as Culture. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505439609526455

Bassett, C. (2019). The computational therapeutic: Exploring Weizenbaum’s ELIZA as a history of the present. AI & SOCIETY, 34(4), 803–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0825-9

Bernius, M. (2012). Manufacturing and Encountering “Human” in the Age of Digital Reproduction. In N. L. Whitehead & M. Wesch (Eds.), Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Unhuman Subjects and the End of Anthropology (pp. 49–70). University Press of Colorado.

Chow, A. R., & Haupt, A. (2025, June 12). A Psychiatrist Posed As a Teen With Therapy Chatbots. The Conversations Were Alarming. TIME. https://time.com/7291048/ai-chatbot-therapy-kids/

Eriksen, A. (2021). The Human Version 2.0: AI, Humanoids, and Immortality. Social Analysis, 65(1), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.3167/sa.2021.650104

Farman, A. (2012). Re-Enchantment Cosmologies: Mastery and Obsolescence in an Intelligent Universe. Anthropological Quarterly, 85(4), 1069–1088. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41857290

Farman, A. (2020). On Not Dying: Secular Immortality in the Age of Technoscience. University of Minnesota Press.

Hayles, N. K. (1999). How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. University of Chicago Press.

Hepp, A., Schmitz, A., & Schneider, N. (2023). Afterlives of the Californian Ideology: Tech Movements, Pioneer Communities, and Imaginaries of Digital Futures. International Journal of Communication, 17(0), Article 0. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/21405

Huberman, J. (2018). Immortality transformed: Mind cloning, transhumanism and the quest for digital immortality. Mortality, 23(1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2017.1304366

Huet, E. (2016, October 20). Pushing the Boundaries of AI to Talk to the Dead. Bloomberg.Com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-20/pushing-the-boundaries-of-ai-to-talk-to-the-dead

Illouz, E. (2008). Saving the Modern Soul: Therapy, Emotions, and the Culture of Self-Help. University of California Press.

Luhrmann, T. M. (2011). Of Two Minds: An Anthropologist Looks at American Psychiatry. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Luka Inc. (2024). Replika. Replika.Com. https://replika.com

Lupton, D. (2016). The Quantified Self. Polity Press.

Martin, E. (2009). Bipolar Expeditions: Mania and Depression in American Culture. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400829590

Office of the Surgeon General. (2023). Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community. US Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK595227/

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster.

Richardson, K. (2016). The asymmetrical “relationship”: Parallels between prostitution and the development of sex robots. SIGCAS Comput. Soc., 45(3), 290–293. https://doi.org/10.1145/2874239.2874281

Rieff, P. (1966). The triumph of the therapeutic: Uses of faith after Freud. Harper and Row.

Riskin, J. (2003). The Defecating Duck, or, the Ambiguous Origins of Artificial Life. Critical Inquiry, 29(4), 599–633. https://doi.org/10.1086/377722

Solberg, M. (2023). Om hvorfor vi fremdeles ikke benytter sosiale roboter i omsorg: Innsikter fra antropologiske studier av språkbruk. Norsk Antropologisk Tidsskrift, 34(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.18261/nat.34.1.2

Turkle, S. (2010). In good company? On the threshold of robotic companions. In Wilks (Ed.), Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key social, psychological, ethical and design issues. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Vidal, F. (2002). Brains, Bodies, Selves, and Science: Anthropologies of Identity and the Resurrection of the Body. Critical Inquiry, 28(4), 930–974. https://doi.org/10.1086/341240

Vidal, F. (2009). Brainhood, anthropological figure of modernity. History of the Human Sciences, 22(1), 5–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695108099133