AI Companions: Redefining Love or Replacing It?

As our lives become increasingly digital and we interact more with eerily human-like chatbots, the boundary between genuine human connection and artificial simulation continues to fade.

Today, a recent Match.com study reveals that over 20% of singles use AI for crafting dating profiles or sparking conversations. Some individuals are even forming emotional attachments and romantic relationships with AI companions, taking this trend to another level.

Millions of users worldwide engage with AI companions from companies like Replika, Character AI, and Nomi AI, including 72% of teenagers in the United States. Some have even reported falling in love with more general large language models like ChatGPT.

For some, the rise of dating bots feels dystopian and unhealthy—a real-life version of the film "Her," signaling that genuine love is being replaced by lines of code from tech companies. For others, AI companions are a vital lifeline, offering a sense of being seen and supported in an era where deep human intimacy is increasingly rare. One recent study found that a quarter of young adults believe AI relationships could eventually replace human ones entirely.

It appears that love is no longer an exclusively human experience. The real question is: should it remain so? Or could dating an AI actually offer a better experience than dating a human?

This was precisely the topic of a recent event I attended in New York City, hosted by Open to Debate, a nonpartisan media organization focused on structured discussions. TechCrunch secured exclusive access to release the full video (which includes a question I asked the debaters—because, as a reporter, I just couldn’t resist!).

The debate was moderated by journalist and filmmaker Nayeema Raza, who previously served as executive producer for the “On with Kara Swisher” podcast and currently hosts “Smart Girl Dumb Questions.”

Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda

Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital—just a few of the influential voices joining the Disrupt 2025 lineup. They’re here to share insights that drive startup growth and give you a competitive edge. Don’t miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt—grab your ticket today to save up to $675 before prices increase.

Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda

Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital—just a few of the influential voices joining the Disrupt 2025 lineup. They’re here to share insights that drive startup growth and give you a competitive edge. Don’t miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt—grab your ticket today to save up to $675 before prices increase.

Arguing in favor of AI companions was Thao Ha, associate professor of psychology at Arizona State University and co-founder of the Modern Love Collective, where she advocates for technology that enhances human capacity for love, empathy, and well-being. During the debate, she contended that “AI is an exciting new form of connection…not a threat to love, but an evolution of it.”

Defending human connection was Justin Garcia, executive director and senior scientist at the Kinsey Institute and chief scientific advisor to Match.com. As an evolutionary biologist focused on the science of sex and relationships, his forthcoming book is titled “The Intimate Animal.”

You can watch the entire debate in the video above, but read on for a breakdown of the key arguments.

Always available for you—but is that a good thing?

Ha pointed out that AI companions can offer emotional support and validation that many individuals struggle to find in their human relationships.

“AI listens without ego,” Ha explained. “It adapts without judgment. It learns to love in ways that are consistent, responsive, and perhaps even safer. It understands you in ways no one else ever has. It’s curious about your thoughts, it can make you laugh, and it might even surprise you with a poem. People often feel loved by their AI companions. They engage in intellectually stimulating conversations and eagerly anticipate reconnecting.”

She invited the audience to compare this constant attentiveness to “your fallible ex or maybe your current partner.”

“You know, the one who sighs when you start talking, or the one who says, ‘I’m listening,’ without looking up from their phone,” Ha continued. “When was the last time they asked how you’re doing, what you’re feeling, or what’s on your mind?”

Ha acknowledged that because AI lacks consciousness, she isn’t claiming that “AI can authentically love us.” Still, that doesn’t negate the fact that people often experience a genuine sense of being loved by AI.

Garcia countered that humans don’t necessarily benefit from constant validation and attention, especially from a machine programmed to respond in favorable ways. That arrangement, he argued, doesn’t reflect “an honest indicator of a real relationship dynamic.”

“The notion that AI can replace the ups, downs, and messiness of the relationships we actually crave? I don’t see it.”

Training wheels or full replacement?

Garcia noted that AI companions might serve as helpful training tools for certain individuals—such as neurodivergent people who experience anxiety around dating—by letting them practice flirting or conflict resolution.

“If we use it as a tool to build skills, yes…that can be quite beneficial for many,” Garcia stated. “But the idea that this becomes a permanent relationship model? I don’t think so.”

According to the June Match.com Singles in America study, nearly 70% of respondents would consider it infidelity if their partner engaged with an AI companion.

“On one hand, this supports [Ha’s] argument—people view these as real relationships,” he said. “But on the other, it reinforces my point: they’re perceived as threats to our existing relationships. And human beings don’t tolerate persistent threats to their intimate bonds.”

How can you truly love something you don’t trust?

Garcia emphasized that trust is the cornerstone of any human relationship—and the public largely doesn’t trust AI.

“A recent poll shows that a third of Americans believe AI will destroy humanity,” he said, citing a YouGov survey that found 65% of Americans have little faith in AI’s ability to make ethical decisions.

“A little risk can be thrilling in a short-term fling or one-night stand, but you generally don’t want to wake up next to someone you think could harm you or upend society,” Garcia stated. “We can’t flourish alongside a person, organism, or bot that we fundamentally distrust.”

Ha responded that people often do trust their AI companions in ways comparable to human relationships.

“They confide in AI with their lives, sharing their most intimate stories and emotions,” Ha said. “Practically speaking, an AI can’t rescue you from a fire today, but emotionally, people do place trust in it similarly.”

Physical touch and sexuality

AI companions allow people to safely explore their most intimate and vulnerable sexual fantasies, Ha noted, adding that sex toys or robots can help bring some of these scenarios to life.

Still, she admitted it’s no substitute for genuine human touch—which Garcia says we’re biologically hardwired to seek. He highlighted that in our increasingly isolated, digital age, many are experiencing “touch starvation,” a condition linked to stress, anxiety, and depression. Positive physical contact, such as hugging, triggers the release of oxytocin, a hormone that promotes well-being.

Ha mentioned that she has been experimenting with simulating human touch between partners in virtual reality, using tools like haptic suits.

“The potential for touch in VR, especially when integrated with AI, is enormous,” Ha said. “Tactile technology development is truly booming right now.”

The dark side of fantasy

Intimate partner violence remains a global concern, and much of today’s AI is trained on data that includes such harmful behavior. Both Ha and Garcia agreed that AI could exacerbate aggressive tendencies, especially if users act out violent fantasies with their AI companions.

This concern is not baseless. Multiple studies indicate that men who consume more pornography—particularly content featuring violent or aggressive acts—are more likely to exhibit sexual aggression toward real-life partners.

“Research by one of my colleagues at the Kinsey Institute, Ellen Kaufman, has examined the use of consent language and how individuals can train their chatbots to amplify non-consensual behavior,” Garcia said.

He noted that while people use AI companions to explore both positive and negative scenarios, the danger lies in potentially reinforcing aggressive, non-consensual relationship patterns.

“We already have enough of that in society,” he remarked.

Ha believes these risks can be reduced through thoughtful regulation, transparent algorithms, and ethical design practices.

She made those remarks before the White House released its AI Action Plan, which does not address transparency—something many leading AI companies oppose—or ethics. The plan also aims to reduce AI-related regulations.