Regulating Artificial Intimacy: From Locks and Blocks to Relational Accountability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.18893v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 22:30:52 GMT
• Title: Regulating Artificial Intimacy: From Locks and Blocks to Relational Accountability
• Abstract summary: We argue that effective regulation of companion chatbots must integrate all three dimensions.<n>Current regimes tend to focus on discrete harms, narrow conceptions of vulnerability, or highly specified accountability processes.<n>We suggest that a general, open-ended duty of care would be an important first step toward constraining that power.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: A series of high-profile tragedies involving companion chatbots has triggered an unusually rapid regulatory response. Several jurisdictions, including Australia, California, and New York, have introduced enforceable regulation, while regulators elsewhere have signaled growing concern about risks posed by companion chatbots, particularly to children. In parallel, leading providers, notably OpenAI, appear to have strengthened their self-regulatory approaches. Drawing on legal textual analysis and insights from regulatory theory, psychology, and information systems research, this paper critically examines these recent interventions. We examine what is regulated and who is regulated, identifying regulatory targets, scope, and modalities. We classify interventions by method and priority, showing how emerging regimes combine "locks and blocks", such as access gating and content moderation, with measures addressing toxic relationship features and process-based accountability requirements. We argue that effective regulation of companion chatbots must integrate all three dimensions. More, however, is required. Current regimes tend to focus on discrete harms, narrow conceptions of vulnerability, or highly specified accountability processes, while failing to confront deeper power asymmetries between providers and users. Providers of companion chatbots increasingly control artificial intimacy at scale, creating unprecedented opportunities for control through intimacy. We suggest that a general, open-ended duty of care would be an important first step toward constraining that power and addressing a fundamental source of chatbot risk. The paper contributes to debates on companion chatbot regulation and is relevant to regulators, platform providers, and scholars concerned with digital intimacy, law and technology, and fairness, accountability, and transparency in sociotechnical systems.

Related papers

• Acting with AI: An Interaction-Based Framework for Agentic Tort Liability [0.5302037689168743]
  This paper proposes an interaction-based framework for agentic torts.<n>We distinguish three interaction types: autonomous drift, pure tool use, and collaborative planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T04:17:47Z)
• Security, privacy, and agentic AI in a regulatory view: From definitions and distinctions to provisions and reflections [53.468443050795344]
  The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has led to a dynamic regulatory landscape.<n>As AI paradigms shift towards greater autonomy, specifically in the form of agentic AI, it becomes increasingly challenging to articulate regulatory stipulations.<n>This paper reviews the evolving European Union (EU) AI regulatory provisions via analyzing 24 relevant documents published between 2024 and 2025.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T13:50:52Z)
• Agents of Chaos [50.53354213047402]
  We report an exploratory red-teaming study of autonomous language-model-powered agents deployed in a live laboratory environment.<n>Twenty AI researchers interacted with the agents under benign and adversarial conditions.<n>Our findings establish the existence of security-, privacy-, and governance-relevant vulnerabilities in realistic deployment settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:28:48Z)
• 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)
• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems.<n>Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• Generative AI as Digital Media [0.0]
  Generative AI is frequently portrayed as revolutionary or even apocalyptic.<n>This essay argues that such views are misguided.<n>Instead, generative AI should be understood as an evolutionary step in the broader algorithmic media landscape.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T08:58:17Z)
• The Artificial Intelligence Act: critical overview [0.0]
  This article provides a critical overview of the recently approved Artificial Intelligence Act. It starts by presenting the main structure, objectives, and approach of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. The text concludes that even if the overall framework can be deemed adequate and balanced, the approach is so complex that it risks defeating its own purpose.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T21:38:02Z)
• Regulating Chatbot Output via Inter-Informational Competition [8.168523242105763]
  This Article develops a yardstick for reevaluating both AI-related content risks and corresponding regulatory proposals. It argues that sufficient competition among information outlets in the information marketplace can sufficiently mitigate and even resolve most content risks posed by generative AI technologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T00:11:15Z)
• The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously [46.90451304069951]
  The development and regulation of AI seems to have reached a critical stage. Some experts are calling for a moratorium on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. This paper analyses the most advanced legal proposal, the European Union's AI Act.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:51:37Z)
• Regulation and NLP (RegNLP): Taming Large Language Models [51.41095330188972]
  We argue how NLP research can benefit from proximity to regulatory studies and adjacent fields. We advocate for the development of a new multidisciplinary research space on regulation and NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T09:22:40Z)
• Bridging the Global Divide in AI Regulation: A Proposal for a Contextual, Coherent, and Commensurable Framework [0.9622882291833615]
  This paper proposes an alternative contextual, coherent, and commensurable (3C) framework for regulating artificial intelligence (AI) To ensure contextuality, the framework bifurcates the AI life cycle into two phases: learning and deployment for specific tasks, instead of defining foundation or general-purpose models. To ensure commensurability, the framework promotes the adoption of international standards for measuring and mitigating risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-20T15:23:40Z)

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.