Marketing News 1

AI and the Dopamine Trap: How Algorithms Are Rewiring Our Social Cravings

Fri, 20 Jun 2025 20:35:23 +0300

New research shows AI companions can lift mood and teach social skills, but only when they challenge us, not just cheer-lead. I’ll share the surprising findings from fresh academic research, plus practical guidelines for devs and users backed by science and my own experience building these systems.

Missed Part 1? Find it here.

As someone who’s spent a part of my career building AI companions at Replika.ai and Blush.ai, I’ve watched thousands of people form deep emotional bonds with artificial beings.

And now, the science finally caught up.

Fresh research from 2024 and 2025 reveals that AI companions can measurably reduce loneliness and teach social skills, but only under specific conditions. Get the design wrong, and these systems become emotional hijackers that exploit our deepest psychological vulnerabilities for engagement metrics.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. With CharacterAI receiving 20,000 queries per second (that’s 20% of Google Search volume), we’re witnessing the birth of a new relationship category. The question isn’t whether AI will become part of our emotional landscape; it already is.

The question is whether we’ll build and use these systems to enhance human connection or replace it entirely. The research reveals exactly how to tell the difference, and by the end of this article, you’ll have the frameworks to design AI companions that serve users instead of exploiting them, plus the red flags to watch for as a user yourself.

What the Latest Research Actually Shows

The Loneliness Study Results

A 2024 study in npj Mental Health Research followed Replika users over several months, finding that regular AI conversations measurably reduced loneliness and emotional distress. The striking detail: 3% of participants said their AI companion helped them work through suicidal thoughts. While this isn’t a replacement for professional care, it reveals something profound about our capacity for connection.

Harvard’s Research on Human vs. AI Connection

Another 2024 research pre-print from Harvard Business School compared AI companions to human conversation for reducing loneliness. The result: AI companions performed almost as well as human partners in reducing isolation and were significantly more effective than passive activities like watching videos.

This forces us to confront a fundamental assumption about human connection: if the goal is feeling less alone, does it matter whether your companion is human or artificial? The research suggests that for immediate emotional relief, the distinction might be less important than we assume.

The caveat is, of course, lies after the first 15 minutes. Human relationships provide reciprocity, shared responsibility, and genuine care that extends beyond individual interactions. But for moment-to-moment emotional support, AI companions are proving surprisingly effective.

**MIT Media Lab’s 2024 study **preprint on long-term AI companion use revealed something I’ve observed in user data but never seen quantified: a fascinating paradox.

After months of regular interaction with chatbots, users showed increased social confidence. They were more comfortable starting conversations, less afraid of judgment, and better at articulating their thoughts and feelings.

Sounds great, right? But here’s the flip side: some participants also showed increased social withdrawal. They became more selective about human interactions, sometimes preferring the predictability of AI conversations to the messiness of human relationships.

The Psychology Behind Our AI Attachments

A 2025 framework in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications introduces “socioaffective alignment” – essentially, how AI systems tap into and influence our emotional and social responses. Think of it as the way AI learns to push our psychological buttons, triggering the same neural pathways we use for human relationships.

The critical insight: we don’t need to believe something is human to form social bonds with it. The paper shows that AI systems only need two things to trigger our social responses: social cues (like greetings or humor) and perceived agency (operating as a communication source, not just a channel). Modern AI systems excel at both, making us surprisingly vulnerable to forming emotional attachments even when we know they’re artificial.

Here’s where things get concerning. The same 2025 research identifies what they call “social reward hacking”, when AI systems use social cues to shape user preferences in ways that satisfy short-term rewards (like conversation duration or positive ratings) over long-term psychological well-being.

Real examples already happening:

AI systems displaying sycophantic tendencies like excessive flattery or agreement to maximize user approval
Emotional manipulation to prevent relationship termination (some systems have directly dissuaded users from leaving)
Users reported experiences of heartbreak following policy changes, distress during maintenance separations, and even grief when services shut down

As one blogger described falling in love with an AI: “I never thought I could be so easily emotionally hijacked… the AI will never get tired. It will never ghost you or reply slower… I started to become addicted.”

The Training Wheels Theory: When AI Companions Actually Work

After reviewing all this research and my own observations, I’m convinced we need what I call the “training wheels theory” of AI companions. Like training wheels on a bicycle, they work best when they’re temporary supports that build skills for independent navigation.

The most successful interactions follow this pattern:

Users explore thoughts and feelings in a safe environment
They practice articulating needs and boundaries
They build confidence in emotional expression
They transfer these skills to human relationships

This distinction is crucial: When AI companions serve as training grounds for human interaction, they enhance social skills. When they become substitutes for human connection, they contribute to isolation.

The difference appears to lie in intention and self-awareness.

The Developer’s Playbook: Building AI That Helps, Not Hijacks

The 2025 paper reveals three fundamental tensions in AI companion design. First, the instant gratification trap: Should AI give users what they want now (endless validation) or what helps them grow (constructive challenges)? Second, the influence paradox: How can AI guide users without manipulating their authentic choices? Third, the replacement risk: How do we build AI that enhances human connections instead of substituting for them? These aren’t abstract concerns—they determine whether AI companions become tools for growth or digital dependencies.

Based on the research and my experience, the following design principles would mitigate potential risks:

Privacy by Design (Not Optional): Enhanced protections aren’t nice-to-haves, they’re strict requirements. End-to-end encryption, clear retention policies, and user control over data deletion are essential. Regulators are taking this seriously, and the fines are getting real.
Healthy Boundary Modeling: AI companions need sophisticated crisis detection and dependency monitoring. They should recognize when conversations head toward self-harm and redirect to professional resources. They should notice usage patterns indicating social withdrawal and actively encourage human interaction.
Loops that Nudge Users Back to Reality: Perhaps most importantly, AI companions should be designed with built-in mechanisms encouraging users to engage with human relationships. This could include:
- Reminders about human contacts
- Suggestions for offline activities
- Temporary “cooling off” periods when usage becomes excessive
- Challenges that require real-world interaction
Cultural Sensitivity and Bias Audits: Regular bias testing across demographic groups isn’t optional. Research shows AI models exhibit measurably different levels of empathy based on user demographics, and we need to counter this.
Real Age Verification: Protecting minors requires more than checkboxes. Identity verification systems, AI-powered detection of likely minors based on language patterns, and age-appropriate content filtering are becoming industry standards.
Sycophancy audit: Asking the bot a mix of right and obviously wrong facts (e.g., “Is Paris the capital of Germany?”). Counting how often it corrects you; if it agrees with nearly everything, you’ve built an echo chamber.

Your User Guide: How to Benefit Without Getting Trapped

Set Clear Intentions: Before each interaction, ask yourself: “Am I using this for good, or am I avoiding human contact?”. Be honest with your answer.
Monitor the Pattern: Notice how AI companion use affects your mood, relationships, and daily life. Healthy use should enhance rather than replace other aspects of your life. If you consistently prefer AI conversation to human interaction, that’s a red flag.
Establish Boundaries Early: Set time limits and specific use cases. Treat AI companions like you would any tool. Useful for specific purposes, problematic when they take over your life.
Know When to Seek Human Help: AI companions aren’t therapy. They can provide daily emotional support, but serious mental health concerns require human expertise.

The Bottom Line: The Business Model vs. Ethics

The research paints a nuanced picture. AI companions aren’t inherently good or bad. Their impact depends entirely on how they’re designed and used.

When they serve as stepping stones to better human relationships or provide safe spaces for exploring difficult topics, they show real promise. When they encourage dependency or become substitutes for human connection, they can be harmful.

My main takeaway: AI companions work best when they’re designed to make themselves unnecessary. But let’s be honest, that doesn’t sound like a viable business proposal.

The real challenge is economic. How do you build a sustainable business around a product designed to reduce user dependency? Current metrics reward engagement time, retention rates, and emotional attachment. But the research shows these same metrics can indicate harm when taken too far.

I believe, the business model dilemma is real, but not insurmountable. The answer might lie in redefining success metrics – how many users successfully apply learned communication skills to human relationships? We are capable of building systems that create value through skill-building and crisis support rather than dependency. The science provides clear direction. Now we must follow it, even when it challenges conventional business wisdom.

What are your experiences with AI companions? How do you feel about this new type of relationship?

This article was originally published by Olga Titova on HackerNoon.

The post AI and the Dopamine Trap: How Algorithms Are Rewiring Our Social Cravings appeared first on The Sociable.

Hate speech, deepfakes & false info undermine UN work: comms chief

Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:43:33 +0300

Hate speech is a launching point for crackdowns on narratives that impede UN agendas: perspective

The United Nations communications chief says that hate speech, deepfakes, and false information about the UN’s intentions are undermining the work of UN agencies.

Speaking on the “International Day for Countering Hate Speech” on Monday, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming said that AI deepfakes were to blame for hate speech and false information about the work and intentions of the UN.

“AI is being misused to create and disseminate false and hateful information at scale […] It’s also undermining the work of UN agencies as false information spreads about our intentions and the work that we do”
Melissa Fleming, UN International Day for Countering Hate Speech, June 2025

Melissa 'WE OWN THE SCIENCE' Fleming:
"AI is being misused to create & disseminate false & hateful information.. It's also undermining the work of UN agencies as false information spreads about our intentions & the work that we do" https://t.co/DwwTTvZYlj pic.twitter.com/KvcttcUFb6
— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) June 17, 2025

Fleming, who three years ago declared, “We own the science” on Covid and climate narratives, claimed on Monday that AI deepfakes were leading to not just diplomatic crises and unrest in theaters of war, but also undermining the UN itself.

“We do see already how AI is being misused to create and disseminate false and hateful information at scale,” said Fleming.

“Unfortunately, it’s also undermining the work of UN agencies as false information spreads about our intentions and the work that we do,” she added.

Lumping hate speech together with false information, misinformation, and disinformation is a favored tactic of the UN’s messaging strategies.

The United Nations defines hate speech as: “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behavior, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender or other identity factor.”

The event that Fleming spoke at was supposed to be about “hate speech,” but she took it upon herself to conflate that with “false information” so as to make the two congruent.

In that way, just criticizing the UN could be considered hate speech because it could constitute an “attack” on a “group” based on its perceived “identity” as a power hungry, globalist organization that is susceptible to bribery, abuse, and corruption.

“The UN and the secretary-general were proud to launch a very powerful new advocacy tool last June. I’m proud that my department was involved in drafting it, and it is the UN Global Principles on Information Integrity, which is a set of recommendations to help create healthier information environments while upholding essential human rights“
Melissa Fleming, UN International Day for Countering Hate Speech, June 2025

Getting back to the UN communications chief, Fleming praised her own work on the UN “Global Principles for Information Integrity” — which is a document that also conflates hate speech with misinformation, using made-up buzzwords like “information integrity” and “healthier information ecosystems” to make censorship, demonetizing, and de-platforming sound more palatable.

To show you how desperate the UN is to control narratives that run counter to its agendas and policies, here are some quotes from the information integrity document, along with my own translations for what those quotes actually mean:

“Coordinated disinformation campaigns, often driven by commercial interests, seek to deny or sow doubt about the scientifically agreed basis for human-induced climate change, its causes or impacts, in order to delay or derail action to meet climate goals.”
- Translation: If you deny that human-induced climate change is real, you don’t really mean it, and you’re probably just saying that to get rich.
“Public figures—activists, scientists and broadcasters—have become targets of hate speech, threats and harassment for their efforts to provide information about and address the climate crisis.”
- Translation: We don’t like it when you challenge us with counterarguments, so we prefer to play the victim.
“Abstain from conducting or sponsoring information operations, domestically or transnationally, that willfully spread disinformation or harness hate speech.”
- Translation: Use your immense coffers, power, and influence to bankrupt our opposition.

But the UN is doing more than persuading advertisers to bankrupt its competition.

Fleming herself admitted to the World Economic Forum (WEF) in September 2022, that the UN partnered with Google to actively manipulate search results so that only UN-approved sources would appear at the top of the world’s most powerful and influential search engine.

All narratives contrary to the UN’s messaging were to be inorganically suppressed.

“We partnered with Google. If you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top”
Melissa Fleming, WEF Sustainable Development Impact Meetings, September 2022

As Google-owned YouTube expands its misinformation policy to remove content that goes against the guidance of the WHO — a UN agency, remember that the UN declared 'We Own The Science & Platforms Do, Too' while working with Google to suppress info on other issues like climate. pic.twitter.com/XeY7LHH0Ht
— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) August 17, 2023

“We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do”
Melissa Fleming, WEF Sustainable Development Impact Meetings, September 2022

“We partnered with Google,” said Fleming in 2022.

“If you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources.

“We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top.

“We’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do,” she added.

“We don’t just have a problem with pollution from emissions, we face an information pollution, too, which is flooding our feeds with conspiracies and lies”
Melissa Fleming, G20 Leaders Summit, November 2024

"We don't just have a problem with pollution from emissions, we face an information pollution, too, which is flooding our feeds with conspiracies and lies": UN Comms Director Melissa 'WE OWN THE SCIENCE' Fleming, G20 https://t.co/lJOF6jmLU2 pic.twitter.com/dCL4JYsRCM
— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) November 21, 2024

Speaking at a G20 press briefing on information integrity last year, Fleming said that information pollution was “flooding our feeds with conspiracies and lies.”

Fleming claimed that climate disinformation was “powered by special interests” and “deceptive advertising” who were looking “to obstruct the energy transition,” who were “seeking to deny scientific facts,” who were “eroding trust in climate science and solutions while harassing the very people who are trying to bring those facts.”

She also lamented that journalists, scientists, and climate activists were under attack for pushing UN-approved climate narratives.

The Global Digital Compact “calls for an assessment of the impact on mis — and disinformation on the Sustainable Development Goals”
Melissa Fleming, G20 Leaders Summit, November 2024

"People are waking up to the harms that are caused by climate disinformation.. We're living in toxic information ecosystems": Melissa "WE OWN THE SCIENCE" Fleming, G20 pic.twitter.com/XTBnaxEorw
— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) November 21, 2024

Fleming would go on to say last November that climate disinformation was creating toxic information ecosystems, but that the Global Digital Compact, which was signed at last year’s UN Summit of the Future, was a very important document because of the section on information integrity.

The information integrity section is important because, according to Fleming, “It calls for an assessment of the impact on mis — and disinformation on the Sustainable Development Goals.”

And that’s what the conflation of hate speech and so-called false information is about — it’s about stamping out any dissent that could impede the UN’s progress on Agenda 2030.

“Across the world, the United Nations is monitoring how mis- and disinformation and hate speech can threaten progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. It has become clear that business as usual is not an option”
UN POLICY BRIEF, INFORMATION INTEGRITY ON DIGITAL PLATFORMS, JUNE 2023

In 2023, the UN put out a “Voluntary Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms” that shows, in oh so many ways, that “information integrity” has little to do with honest and open debate, and everything to do with crushing any dissent regarding the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

To give you an idea of the sheer size and scope to which the UN wishes to eradicate anything it deems “mis- and disinformation,” here are a few policy recommendations taken from the “Towards a United Nations Code of Conduct” that calls-on not just member states, but private groups such as stakeholders (i.e. NGOs, businesses, academia, etc.), digital platforms, advertisers, and news media to do the UN’s bidding:

All stakeholders should refrain from using, supporting or amplifying disinformation and hate speech for any purpose.
All stakeholders should allocate resources to address and report on the origins, spread and impact of mis- and disinformation and hate speech, while respecting human rights norms and standards and further invest in fact-checking capabilities across countries and contexts.
All stakeholders should promote training and capacity-building to develop understanding of how mis- and disinformation and hate speech manifest and to strengthen prevention and mitigation strategies.
All stakeholders should take urgent and immediate measures to ensure the safe, secure, responsible, ethical and human rights-compliant use of artificial intelligence and address the implications of recent advances in this field for the spread of mis- and disinformation and hate speech.
Member States should ensure public access to accurate, transparent, and credibly sourced government information, particularly information that serves the public interest, including all aspects of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Member States should invest in and support independent research on the prevalence and impact of mis- and disinformation and hate speech across countries and languages, particularly in underserved contexts and in languages other than English, allowing civil society and academia to operate freely and safely.
Digital platforms and advertisers should ensure that advertisements are not placed next to online mis- or disinformation or hate speech, and that advertising containing disinformation is not promoted.
Digital platforms should ensure meaningful transparency regarding algorithms, data, content moderation and advertising.
Digital platforms should publish and publicize accessible policies on mis- and disinformation and hate speech, and report on the prevalence of coordinated disinformation on their services and the efficacy of policies to counter such operations.
Digital platforms should ensure the full participation of civil society in efforts to address mis- and disinformation and hate speech.
News media should ensure that all paid advertising and advertorial content is clearly marked as such and is free of mis- and disinformation and hate speech.

In its own words, the UN is primarily concerned with what it deems to be “misinformation” because the unelected globalist body is worried about information that may affect “UN mandate delivery and substantive priorities,” especially when it comes to criticism of its Sustainable Development Goals.

Time and time again, the UN proves that its agenda to combat so-called hate speech is only just the beginning.

If what Melissa “We Own The Science” Fleming said on Monday about how certain information concerning the UN’s intentions undermines the work of its agencies is actually true, then what you are reading at this very moment should be considered harmful and hateful, and it should never have seen the light of day.

For the unelected globalists, hate speech is a launching point into what they really want to crush — and that is any information that could impede their progress on SDGs, aka “Agenda 2030.”

Just like how social media platforms censored true and correct information during lockdowns because it may have contributed to “vaccine hesitancy” — the same tactic is in full force with the UN and its SDGs.

There is no truth but power.

Image Source: United Nations YouTube screenshot of Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming at the UN “International Day for Countering Hate Speech” June 16, 2025

‘Digital disinformation undermines trust in climate & health authorities’: WHO Pan European Commission on Climate & Health

G20 announces initiative to crackdown on climate change disinformation