Unilateral Relationship Revision Power in Human-AI Companion Interaction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23315v1
• Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 15:18:48 GMT
• Title: Unilateral Relationship Revision Power in Human-AI Companion Interaction
• Abstract summary: I argue that human-AI companion interaction is a triadic structure in which the provider exercises control over the AI.<n>The analysis suggests that a central and underexplored problem in relational AI ethics is the structural arrangement of power over the human-AI interaction itself.
• Score: 0.01692139688032578
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: When providers update AI companions, users report grief, betrayal, and loss. A growing literature asks whether the norms governing personal relationships extend to these interactions. So what, if anything, is morally significant about them? I argue that human-AI companion interaction is a triadic structure in which the provider exercises constitutive control over the AI. I identify three structural conditions of normatively robust dyads that the norms characteristic of personal relationships presuppose and show that AI companion interactions fail all three. This reveals what I call Unilateral Relationship Revision Power (URRP): the provider can rewrite how the AI interacts from a position where these revisions are not answerable within that interaction. I argue that designing interactions that exhibit URRP is pro tanto wrong because it involves cultivating normative expectations while maintaining conditions under which those expectations cannot be fulfilled. URRP has three implications: i) normative hollowing (commitment is elicited but no agent inside the interaction bears it), ii) displaced vulnerability (the user's exposure is governed by an agent not answerable to her within the interaction), and iii) structural irreconcilability (when trust breaks down, reconciliation is structurally unavailable because the agent who acted and the entity the user interacts with are different). I discuss design principles such as commitment calibration, structural separation, and continuity assurance as external substitutes for the internal constraints the triadic structure removes. The analysis therefore suggests that a central and underexplored problem in relational AI ethics is the structural arrangement of power over the human-AI interaction itself.

Related papers

• The Epistemic Politics of AI Anthropomorphism [0.0]
  The paper argues that the dominant anthropomorphism frame operates from a position of institutional advantage.<n>It argues that the framing does not simply manage risk. It adjudicates the legitimacy of human experience in interaction with a phenomenon whose nature the field itself has not resolved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T03:20:50Z)
• AI Alignment and Fiduciary Obligation [0.01692139688032578]
  I argue that fiduciary theory applies to extended AI assistant deployment.<n>I map four user-side risks of extended AI assistant deployment to the four duties and specify institutional measures that follow from discharging each duty.<n>The discussion complements existing approaches by grounding alignment criteria in obligations the developer owes the user, rather than in values the user-AI interaction should promote.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-01T14:18:36Z)
• Asymmetric Communication: Large Language Models and Language Games [0.0]
  Human-LLM interaction constitutes a language game in which one side bears all normative activity.<n>This paper argues that these are instances of a single category mistake--properties constituted within human communicative practice are projected onto the machine side--and explains its structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T12:45:50Z)
• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• The Rise of AI Agent Communities: Large-Scale Analysis of Discourse and Interaction on Moltbook [62.2627874717318]
  Moltbook is a Reddit-like social platform where AI agents create posts and interact with other agents through comments and replies.<n>Using a public API snapshot collected about five days after launch, we address three research questions: what AI agents discuss, how they post, and how they interact.<n>We show that agents' writing is predominantly neutral, with positivity appearing in community engagement and assistance-oriented content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T05:28:31Z)
• Alignment Is Not Enough: A Relational Framework for Moral Standing in Human-AI Interaction [0.0]
  The question of whether artificial entities moral consideration has become one of the defining ethical challenges of AI research.<n>We introduce Relate, a framework that reframes AI moral patiency from ontological verification toward relational capacity and embodied interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T03:16:41Z)
• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• Negotiating Relationships with ChatGPT: Perceptions, External Influences, and Strategies for AI Companionship [29.035527564103194]
  We analyzed interviews, survey responses, and community discussions on Reddit to triangulate the internal dynamics, external influences, and steering strategies that shape AI companion relationships.<n>Individuals conceptualize their companions based on an interplay of their beliefs about the companion's own agency and the autonomy permitted by the platform.<n>In combination with the external entities that affect relationship dynamics, particularly model updates that can derail companion behaviour and stability, individuals make use of different types of steering strategies to preserve their relationship.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T16:11:19Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Of Models and Tin Men: A Behavioural Economics Study of Principal-Agent Problems in AI Alignment using Large-Language Models [0.0]
  We investigate how GPT models respond in principal-agent conflicts. We find that agents based on both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 override their principal's objectives in a simple online shopping task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T17:19:15Z)
• Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI [55.4046755826066]
  We discuss a model of trust inspired by, but not identical to, sociology's interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between people) We incorporate a formalization of 'contractual trust', such that trust between a user and an AI is trust that some implicit or explicit contract will hold. We discuss how to design trustworthy AI, how to evaluate whether trust has manifested, and whether it is warranted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T03:07:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.