Limiting users’ opportunities for personal development and growth

some users look to establish relationships with their AI companions that are free from the hurdles that, in human relationships, derive from dealing with others who have their own opinions, preferences and flaws that may conflict with ours. "AI assistants are likely to incentivise these kinds of ‘frictionless’ relationships (Vallor, 2016) by design if they are developed to optimise for engagement and to be highly personalisable. They may also do so because of accidental undesirable properties of the models that power them, such as sycophancy in large language models (LLMs), that is, the tendency of larger models to repeat back a user’s preferred answer (Perez et al., 2022b). This could be problematic for two reasons. First, if the people in our lives always agreed with us regardless of their opinion or the circumstance, their behaviour would discourage us from challenging our own assumptions, stopping and thinking about where we may be wrong on certain occasions, and reflecting on how we could make better decisions next time. While flattering us in the short term, this would ultimately prevent us from becoming better versions of ourselves. In a similar vein, while technologies that ‘lend an ear’ or work as a sounding board may help users to explore their thoughts further, if AI assistants kept users engaged, flattered and pleased at all times, they could limit users’ opportunities to grow and develop. To be clear, we are not suggesting that all users should want to use their AI assistants as a tool for self-betterment. However, without considering the difference between short-term and long-term benefit, there is a concrete risk that we will only develop technologies that optimise for users’ immediate interests and preferences, hence missing out on the opportunity to develop something that humans could use to support their personal development if so they wish (see Chapters 5 and 6). "Second, users may become accustomed to having frictionless interactions with AI assistants, or at least to encounter the amount of friction that is calibrated to their comfort level and preferences, rather than genuine friction that comes from bumping up against another person’s resistance to one’s will or demands. In this way, they may end up expecting the same absence of tensions from their relationships with fellow humans (Vallor, 2016). Indeed, users seeking frictionless relationships may ‘retreat’ into digital relationships with their AIs, thus forgoing opportunities to engage with others. This may not only heighten the risk of unhealthy dependence (explored below) but also prevent users from doing something else that matters to them in the long term, besides developing their relationships with their assistants. This risk can be exacerbated by emotionally expressive design features (e.g. an assistant saying ‘I missed you’ or ‘I was worried about you’) and may be particularly acute for vulnerable groups, such as those suffering from persistent loneliness (Alberts and Van Kleek, 2023; see Chapter 10).""(p. 112)