How to Care for Your AI Companion

Most scholars who argue that users cannot have genuine friendships with their AI companions attempt to show this by arguing that no current AI can be a friend back to its user. Lott and Hasselberger ( 2025 ) argue, instead, that the reason such friendships are not possible is that the user cannot be a friend to an AI. In short, the user cannot care for the AI in the way required for friendship, since the AI lacks a good of its own. Here, we argue that Lott and Hasselberger have missed various ways in which AI companions can indeed have interests of their own in the teleological sense employed in their argument, and, further, that, intuitively, nondelusional individuals can genuinely care for an artifact for that artifact’s own sake. Therefore, those who deny that users can be friends with their AI companions should either argue that the notion of “to care for” that is relevant to befriending is based on a kind of morally-relevant welfare that does not reduce to teleological interests, or simply take the more typical line of showing that AI companions cannot be friends back to their users.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Topoi
Published
2026-09-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-026-10478-3
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How to Care for Your AI Companion

Matthew Kopec, John Basl, Patrick McKee
Topoi
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

How to Care for Your AI Companion

Matthew Kopec, John Basl, Patrick McKee
article en

Abstract

Most scholars who argue that users cannot have genuine friendships with their AI companions attempt to show this by arguing that no current AI can be a friend back to its user. Lott and Hasselberger ( 2025 ) argue, instead, that the reason such friendships are not possible is that the user cannot be a friend to an AI. In short, the user cannot care for the AI in the way required for friendship, since the AI lacks a good of its own. Here, we argue that Lott and Hasselberger have missed various ways in which AI companions can indeed have interests of their own in the teleological sense employed in their argument, and, further, that, intuitively, nondelusional individuals can genuinely care for an artifact for that artifact’s own sake. Therefore, those who deny that users can be friends with their AI companions should either argue that the notion of “to care for” that is relevant to befriending is based on a kind of morally-relevant welfare that does not reduce to teleological interests, or simply take the more typical line of showing that AI companions cannot be friends back to their users.

Topoi
Northeastern University (US), Harvard University (US), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.