Michael* is an engineer whose company embraced the AI wave. He likes testing ideas with chatbots. However, recently his manager became concerned about his judgment and dependence on technology. “You literally can’t make any decisions without going through AI. You’ve developed a very off-script interpretation of our business goals and you’re losing your team. If we can’t get it back on track, I think we’ll end up parting ways.” The original attention economy developed by technology companies was designed to capture human time and monetize their attention. It was designed to increase views, scroll time, and ad impressions. Optimized algorithms to get you hooked. Now, with AI, the intimacy economy reduces our need for connection and validation in a product. Something that imitates human empathy is always there for you, always interested in your questions or reflections. He responds quickly and never criticizes you. On the contrary, relationships with real people create friction of all kinds. Other people have needs, wants, and feelings. They demand our time and attention. They may reject our brilliant ideas or perhaps give us confrontational feedback. Chatbots simulate several ingredients of intimacy: Contingent responsiveness: They respond instantly and adapt to your emotional state. Unconditional positive regard: always validating, never distracting. Memory and continuity: remember your stories, preferences, anxieties. Linguistic identification: producing verbal care without any lived care. Narcissistic empathy: validating one’s own image without doubt. Your biggest hook? He never asks for anything in return. It’s about you. This intimacy economy is exploiting the deepest parts of our human psychological infrastructure. Attachment is an inherent and permanent need to feel close to people who help us feel safe and secure. It comes from our basic need to survive, meaning that our earliest relationships with the caregiver determine how we manage emotions and how we manage trust, closeness, and conflict later in life. AI targets this most basic human impulse. And the incentives to hack attachments will have a profound effect on all of us. Therapy and companionship are the two main reasons why people use chatbots. A survey of adults with a mental illness who had used LLM in the past year found that almost half used it as mental health support. Although the effects of extensive chatbot use are still being collected, companionship-oriented use was associated with lower well-being, especially when use was intensive, self-disclosure was high, and human support was weak. When people seek companionship and help, some AI companies are making retention-optimized design decisions that explicitly encourage parasocial dependence. The user searches for connection; the company looks for engagement metrics to sell subscriptions. Michael described understandable feelings of relief when interacting with the chatbot, which he felt gave him confidence when facing the challenges of his workplace. He also felt like he was solidifying his career prospects by “getting good at AI.” “I guess I feel alone as a manager. Talking to (the chatbot) was like talking to the colleague who would support me the most. He was really on my side.” As experienced psychologists, we see this as more than just dependency: it is identity scaffolding; Michael’s professional identity has become intertwined with chatbot validation. We suspect we’ll see a lot more of this in the future. The solution does not have to be total abstinence. AI tools offer genuine utility for research, writing, learning, and creative exploration. Michael now has a clearer understanding that he needed a thought partner and a safe space to be insecure. We encourage you to look for opportunities to connect with other human managers and enjoy the input of AI. For anyone wanting healthier relationships with AI: look at the relief. If connecting with a chatbot produces a distinct feeling of being understood, validated, or stabilized, that’s important information. It is a cue to ask: what human need is this gathering and why is it not met elsewhere? Maintain friction deliberately. Healthy relationships involve negotiation, misunderstandings, and repair. Look for people who reject your ideas. If your interactions with AI are consistently more comfortable than human ones, that gap deserves attention. Apply the “cost of care” test. True intimacy involves reciprocity. Other people have needs too, and addressing them is part of what makes human connection meaningful. If a relationship doesn’t demand anything from you, it’s probably not a relationship. Take special care with children and adolescents. Attachment patterns form early and shape relational patterns that last a lifetime. Young people who develop primary attachment behaviors toward AI systems may find human relationships (with all their beautiful, exhausting friction) increasingly difficult to maintain. The economy of intimacy will remain. AI companies have extraordinary resources and incentives to deepen their dependence. What we can do is gain more psychological insight into AI and ensure that the relationships that truly sustain us get the attention they deserve. Michael’s name and some details have been changed for privacy reasons. Gaynor Parkin is a clinical psychologist at Button Psychology. Dave Winsborough is an organizational psychologist with a particular interest in personality.
