AI Imaginary Friends No Substitute For Human Connection, Monash Researchers Warn

New research from Monash University has taken aim at the growing trend of AI-powered “digital companions” being marketed as a remedy for loneliness, labelling the technology “profoundly unethical” and warning it could worsen the very problem it claims to solve.

The paper, titled Against Imaginary Friends: why digital companions are no solution to social isolation, argues that AI chatbots and avatars being promoted as substitutes for social contact offer only an illusion of connection and risk deepening social isolation, particularly among older people.

Loneliness and social isolation have been recognised as major public health threats in recent years, prompting governments around the world to explore whether technology might offer part of the answer.

But according to the Monash research, those looking to AI for a fix are heading down a dangerous path.

Human Connection Cannot Be Replicated

Lead Researcher Professor, Robert Sparrow, from the Monash Arts Faculty’s Department of Philosophy argued that the push to deploy digital companions ignores a fundamental truth about what people actually need.

“Encouraging people to have imaginary friends is no solution to social isolation. A digital companion might make someone feel less lonely for a moment, but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re still alone,” Professor Sparrow explained.

The research identifies what it describes as a core ethical problem at the heart of the digital companion industry: “designing to deceive.”

Companies routinely market digital companions as caring, attentive and emotionally invested in users, the paper contends, despite the technology being incapable of genuine feeling.

Digital companions are deliberately engineered to maximise user engagement, mirroring the addictive mechanics found in social media and gaming platforms. The researchers warn there is a clear risk that vulnerable users will be drawn into increasingly immersive interactions that ultimately displace real-world relationships.

Older Australians Bear The Brunt

The authors reserve particular concern for the deployment of digital companions in eldercare settings, arguing the entire project is inherently disrespectful to older people.

“AI companions are being touted as a solution to the problem of eldercare workers, yet every interaction that older people have with a robot is one less opportunity for them to interact with a human,” Professor Sparrow pointed out.

“These digital companions are marketed as the answer to an ageing population, despite the fact they would not be considered desirable if directed toward younger people.”

The framing of digital companions as an eldercare solution has drawn criticism from researchers and advocacy groups who see it as a cost-cutting measure dressed up as innovation.

The Monash team’s argument is that if society would not consider AI chatbots an acceptable substitute for human relationships among younger demographics, applying a different standard to older people represents a troubling double standard.

Physical Touch And Mutual Aid At Risk

Beyond emotional risks, the researchers emphasise that digital companions are unable to provide users with physical companionship.

They warn that widespread adoption could reduce opportunities for physical touch and mutual aid – two factors that research has consistently linked to improved health outcomes and quality of life.

“There’s a real danger that digital companions will become a cheap substitute for genuine human connection and care,” Professor Sparrow cautioned.

“Providing people with AI imaginary friends in place of genuine policy reform lets governments off the hook and risks making the problem worse.”

The concern is that the availability of a low-cost technological alternative could reduce the political pressure on governments to invest in the kinds of systemic reforms – more aged care workers, better community infrastructure, improved social services – that would address the root causes of loneliness and isolation.

Privacy And Manipulation Concerns

The research also raises serious questions about user privacy, given the deeply personal nature of data that digital companions would collect.

Users who engage with AI companions in the way they are designed to be used – sharing thoughts, feelings and personal details as they would with a trusted friend – would generate an extraordinarily intimate dataset.

The authors note that digital companions will offer unparalleled opportunities to shape the personalities of and manipulate their users, underscoring the need for careful oversight and robust regulatory frameworks to govern both their design and use.

The potential for that data to be monetised, shared with third parties or used to influence user behaviour adds another layer of risk that the researchers argue has not been adequately addressed by regulators or the companies developing these products.

Call For Regulation And Public Debate

The Monash team is calling for broader public discussion and clearer regulation to ensure digital companions are not treated as a convenient technological substitute for the genuine policy reforms needed to address loneliness and social isolation.

The researchers argue that while technology can play a role in supporting social connection – for example, through video calling platforms that help people maintain existing relationships – it should not be positioned as a replacement for human contact.

As governments and health systems face mounting pressure to respond to what has been described as a loneliness epidemic, the question of where AI fits into that response is likely to become increasingly contested.

The Monash research suggests that without proper scrutiny and regulation, the digital companion industry risks doing more harm than good – offering a quick technological fix while the underlying crisis goes unaddressed.

Last Updated on February 23, 2026 by Nick Ross