Given the vast capabilities of computer-mediated communication (CMC), people have been able to connect, fostering attachments with people all over the world. Taken at face value, this seems like a wonderful invention that would promote intimacy and community beyond the borders of one’s personal reach. However, in our society that is so consumed by technology, connection has become pervasive to the point of threatening users’ health and safety. According to the hyperpersonal model of CMC, online relationships can be experienced and understood as more intimate and intense than face-to-face interactions, inevitably exposing the CMC user to danger. What happens when you develop an intimate connection but cannot discern who is behind the screen or separate falsities from reality?
One danger that has elicited severe caution over the years is catfishing. Hiding behind the anonymity of the screen, people can fabricate their identities, personalities and motivations for connection. The most typically cited reasons for catfishing are emotional and financial manipulation. These means are accomplished through establishing an intimate yet false relationship with the target. Weaponizing lies, catfishers exploit trust by carefully constructing emotional dependency, making their deception both convincing and difficult to detect. More alarmingly, catfishing has surpassed the days when perpetrators relied solely on their persuasion and stock images from the internet. Through the invention of artificial intelligence, catfishers are armed with new means to falsify their identities. Artificial intelligence has made deception more sophisticated and scalable, whether it involves creating false images for profiles, crafting messages or fabricating elaborate backstories. While stock images can be reverse searched, these AI creations are essentially untraceable, rendering traditional verification methods ineffective. As a result, catfishing has become all the more threatening.
However, this is not the only instance in which artificial intelligence negatively affects connection. Due to the accessibility and never-ending responses that AI platforms like ChatGPT, Claude or Google Gemini provide, some people have increasingly turned to these platforms to feel heard, using them as a sounding board for their thoughts and emotions. However, this sort of engagement can become a point of concern as casual use turns into something more intimate, where individuals begin to conceptualize these input-output interactions as a relationship. One large danger is that this sense of intimacy and connection becomes so strong that the user cannot delineate between what’s real and what’s not. These delusions based on false beliefs are referred to as psychosis. Psychosis is a real concern in AI usage. Companies like Replika, however, have disregarded these safety concerns and instead choose to capitalize on this phenomenon by creating AI girlfriends and AI boyfriends designed to simulate emotional connection. By encouraging relationships through an interface of zeroes and ones, society is promoting social isolation and relationships with no repercussions. AI relationships remove the element of rejection and consequences, promising you a “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” that will always be receptive and available to you.
It’s important to ask: if there were a world with no repercussions for how we behave in our relationships, would our empathy and accountability still be intact?
In regard to psychosis, another form of online relationship threatens to elicit this mental response: parasocial relationships. Parasocial relationships can be described as one-sided, perceived relationships. This perception is experienced by the viewer, typically in response to an online personality. There is no true connection between the two individuals, but because of the overwhelming amount of information available online, the viewer feels acquainted with the creator in an intimate, knowing way. Parasocial relationships can be very isolating, and they seemingly don’t entail any repercussions. Rather, these “connections” feel comforting in that the viewer can engage with the sense that they will not be rejected. Except, the aversion to rejection so prevalent in today’s society can be very limiting and isolating, taking a heavy toll on one’s social and emotional learning and experiences. In this way, parasocial relationships offer the illusion of connection without requiring the vulnerability that are essential to forming genuine human relationships.
Rejection, intimacy and conflict can be scary, but it is authentic relationships that bring so much meaning into our lives. As this reflection comes to a close, I would like to leave you with a question: How do we provide safeguards to foster meaningful, healthy relationships online, or how do we move away from online relationships altogether as a society (if this is even possible) and embrace the community around us?