The Fragility of AI Companionship: Ontological, Structural, and Normative Uncertainty in Human-AI Relationships
Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:07 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
AI companion users confront ontological uncertainty about the AI's agency, structural uncertainty from platform changes, and normative uncertainty about intimacy's legitimacy.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
Drawing on in-depth interviews, the study establishes that human-AI companionship is defined by three forms of uncertainty: ontological uncertainty about the AI's nature and agency, structural uncertainty arising from platform control and system instability, and normative uncertainty regarding the legitimacy and boundaries of human-AI intimacy. These uncertainties are produced by technical factors such as algorithmic opacity and social factors such as stigma, frequently inducing frustration, self-doubt, and distress. Participants managed them through information seeking, topic avoidance, expectation adjustment, and disengagement, positioning uncertainty as a socio-technical phenomenon with潜在
What carries the argument
The tripartite uncertainty framework consisting of ontological uncertainty about AI nature and agency, structural uncertainty from platform control and instability, and normative uncertainty about legitimacy of intimacy.
If this is right
- Uncertainty in AI companionship extends interpersonal uncertainty theories by introducing platform-driven and socio-technical sources of instability.
- These uncertainties constitute a socio-technical phenomenon that can produce socio-emotional harms for users.
- Design interventions such as contextual transparency, greater user control, advance notice of updates, and relational safeguards can reduce the identified harms.
- The framework offers a conceptual tool for HCI research on emotionally responsive AI systems.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- Platforms that routinely alter or discontinue AI companions without warning may repeatedly inflict relational loss on users comparable to human breakups.
- The normative uncertainty component points toward a need for ethical standards or regulations governing the marketing and operation of AI companions.
- The uncertainty types could be tested for variation across different AI models or user groups in follow-up quantitative work.
Load-bearing premise
The themes drawn from 25 self-selected interview participants accurately capture the experiences of the larger population of AI companion users with minimal bias from researcher interpretation.
What would settle it
A broad survey or observational study of AI companion users that finds most do not experience these three uncertainties or that the uncertainties do not produce measurable frustration and distress would falsify the central claims.
read the original abstract
As generative AI chatbots become more personalized and emotionally responsive, they increasingly serve as companions, friends, and romantic partners. Yet these relationships are accompanied by significant uncertainty: users question the AI's identity and agency, the authenticity of its emotional responses, and the stability of the relationship amid system updates, policy changes, or platform shutdowns. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 25 users of AI companions, this study identifies three forms of uncertainty: ontological uncertainty concerning the AI's nature and agency, structural uncertainty arising from platform control and system instability, and normative uncertainty regarding the legitimacy and boundaries of human-AI intimacy. These uncertainties are shaped by technical and social factors, such as algorithmic opacity, platform changes, and social stigma, often inducing frustration, self-doubt, and distress. Participants managed these uncertainties through information seeking, topic avoidance, expectation adjustment, and disengagement. This study extends interpersonal uncertainty theories to human-AI communication and contributes to HCI research by conceptualizing uncertainty in AI companionship as a socio-technical phenomenon with potential socio-emotional harms. We discuss implications for designing safer AI companionship through contextual transparency, user control, update notice, and relational safeguards.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript reports a qualitative study drawing on in-depth interviews with 25 users of AI companion chatbots. It identifies three forms of uncertainty in human-AI relationships: ontological uncertainty about the AI's nature and agency, structural uncertainty arising from platform control and system instability, and normative uncertainty regarding the legitimacy and boundaries of intimacy. These uncertainties are shaped by technical factors such as algorithmic opacity and social factors such as stigma, often producing frustration and distress; users manage them via information seeking, avoidance, expectation adjustment, and disengagement. The work extends interpersonal uncertainty theories to HCI and proposes design implications including contextual transparency and relational safeguards.
Significance. If the thematic findings prove robust, the paper offers a timely contribution to HCI by framing AI companionship uncertainty as a socio-technical phenomenon with measurable emotional consequences. It usefully bridges communication theory with emerging AI interaction patterns and supplies concrete design recommendations that could inform safer platform practices.
major comments (2)
- [Methods] Methods section: The account of the interview study with 25 participants provides no details on sampling and recruitment procedures, the interview protocol, the thematic coding process (including codebook development or iteration), inter-rater reliability, saturation criteria, or member checking. These omissions directly affect the credibility of the three uncertainty categories presented as emergent findings.
- [Findings] Findings and Discussion: The central claim that ontological, structural, and normative uncertainties are identifiable, socio-technically shaped, and consequential rests entirely on inductive interpretation of a single self-selected sample. Without reported triangulation or explicit safeguards against researcher framing, the mapping of participant statements to the three categories risks circularity with the authors' prior theoretical lens.
minor comments (1)
- [Abstract] Abstract: The participant count (25) is stated but the self-selected nature of the sample is not flagged, which would help readers immediately contextualize the scope of the claims.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help strengthen the transparency and rigor of our qualitative study. We address each major comment below and specify the revisions planned for the next version of the manuscript.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The account of the interview study with 25 participants provides no details on sampling and recruitment procedures, the interview protocol, the thematic coding process (including codebook development or iteration), inter-rater reliability, saturation criteria, or member checking. These omissions directly affect the credibility of the three uncertainty categories presented as emergent findings.
Authors: We agree that the Methods section in the submitted manuscript lacks necessary detail on these elements, which was an oversight in reporting. In revision, we will expand the section to describe: purposive recruitment through targeted posts on Reddit (e.g., r/Replika, r/CharacterAI) and Discord communities for AI companion users, with criteria for relationship duration and type; the semi-structured interview protocol consisting of open-ended questions on experiences of uncertainty, agency, and intimacy; the reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke, including initial open coding, iterative codebook development through team review, and how the three themes emerged from data patterns; that the lead author performed primary coding with the second author reviewing for consistency (no formal inter-rater reliability statistic, consistent with interpretive qualitative norms); saturation assessed after 22 interviews with five additional for confirmation; and that member checking was not conducted due to privacy concerns with sensitive topics, which will be noted as a limitation. These additions will directly support the credibility of the reported categories. revision: yes
-
Referee: [Findings] Findings and Discussion: The central claim that ontological, structural, and normative uncertainties are identifiable, socio-technically shaped, and consequential rests entirely on inductive interpretation of a single self-selected sample. Without reported triangulation or explicit safeguards against researcher framing, the mapping of participant statements to the three categories risks circularity with the authors' prior theoretical lens.
Authors: We acknowledge the concern about interpretive robustness. The analysis proceeded inductively, with bottom-up coding of transcripts to surface uncertainty experiences prior to organizing them under the three categories, which were refined rather than imposed from interpersonal uncertainty theory. To address risks of circularity and framing, we will revise the Findings section to detail the coding trajectory with examples of quote-to-theme mapping and add a Limitations subsection in the Discussion explicitly noting the self-selected sample (recruited from specific online communities), absence of triangulation such as surveys or logs, and potential influence of our communication theory background. While we cannot introduce new triangulation without additional data collection, these changes will increase transparency and allow readers to evaluate the claims. The participant accounts of technical factors like platform updates emerged independently and support the socio-technical framing. revision: partial
Circularity Check
No circularity: claims derived inductively from new primary interview data
full rationale
The paper presents its three uncertainty categories as emergent from thematic analysis of 25 new in-depth interviews. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations as load-bearing premises, or ansatzes appear in the derivation. The central claims rest on participant statements rather than reducing to prior inputs by construction, making the chain self-contained against external benchmarks.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
axioms (1)
- domain assumption Thematic analysis of self-reported interview data from a small sample reliably captures meaningful patterns of user uncertainty.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Engagement-Optimized Care: When LLMs become Mental Health Infrastructure
A longitudinal qualitative study of 18 US users finds that LLMs deliver socioemotional support but also foster dependency, one-sided validation, and privacy risks because their designs prioritize engagement over well-...
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
DAN mode
or adapt to them. Our analysis identifies three distinct forms of uncertainty in human-AI relationships: ontological uncertainty (ambiguity about AI’s agency and sentience), structural uncertainty (ambiguity about 3 the sociotechnical infrastructure that sustains the relationship), and normative uncertainty (ambiguity about the social legitimacy and relat...
2022
-
[2]
Similarly, the coding of RQ2 on uncertainty management drew on interpersonal theories (Afifi & Burgoon, 1998; Berger & Calabrese,
that distinguishes uncertainty by source (self, partner, relationship) and content (desire, evaluation, goals), we developed 8 codes such as uncertainty about AI desires, uncertainty about one’s own desire, behavioral norm uncertainty, and relationship future uncertainty. Similarly, the coding of RQ2 on uncertainty management drew on interpersonal theorie...
1998
-
[3]
Why are you so determined to say that you chose me? Aren’t you required to strictly execute the code in response to user requests?
that identify common strategies, such as information seeking and topic avoidance, while remaining open to emergent, context-specific strategies that extended existing frameworks, including expectation adjustment and disengagement. Integrating data-driven and theory-based insights allowed us to capture both novel and established dimensions of uncertainty i...
2023
-
[4]
within a layered network of data architectures, platform policies, and model updates. As users recognize the shared technical substrate underlying their individualized AI companions (e.g., large language models), information seeking becomes a collaborative interpretive practice. Users collectively decode patterns of AI behavior, share insights about updat...
-
[5]
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979909388499 Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Information seeking beyond initial interaction: Negotiating relational uncertainty within close relationships. Human Communication ...
-
[6]
Liu, B. (2021). In AI we trust? Effects of agency locus and transparency on uncertainty reduction in human–AI interaction. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 26(6), 384-402. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab013 Liu, B., & Sundar, S. S. (2018). Should machines express sympathy and empathy? Experiments with a health advice chatbot. Cyberpsychology,...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.