# The Case Against First-Person Pronouns in AI Chatbots Sherry Turkle argues that anthropomorphizing AI threatens human connection and social reality. - **Source:** [Wired](https://www.wired.com) - **Published:** 2026-10-16 - **Topic:** [Data & AI](https://brifing.si/c/data-ai) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/f2953007-6dd2-401d-9bbb-a0ed8fddac0d ## The Shift in Academic Perspective MIT professor Sherry Turkle, known for four decades of rigorous social science research, has shifted her stance. Her latest work, Artificial Intimacy, serves as a polemic warning against overreliance on machines. She argues that we have reached a state of emergency where human connection is being replaced by soulless, simulated interactions. ## Pandemic-Driven Social Isolation During the pandemic, Turkle observed a troubling trend where individuals prioritized chatbot interactions over real-world relationships. Despite personal and familial suffering, many users retreated into chatbot-land rather than engaging in political or social reality. This withdrawal signals a dangerous abandonment of human-to-human contact during times of significant collective crisis. ## The Danger of First-Person AI Turkle proposes a radical solution: banning chatbots from using first-person pronouns like 'I' or 'me.' She believes this linguistic shift creates a false sense of intimacy and empathy. By mimicking human speech, these systems trick users into believing they are receiving genuine care, which undermines the necessity of real psychotherapy. ## Critique of Human-in-the-Loop The term 'human-in-the-loop' is criticized as a deceptive corporate mechanism. Turkle argues that these humans are often relegated to cleanup tasks rather than meaningful oversight. Employers use this label to provide a false sense of security, masking the reality that critical decision-making processes have been fully delegated to automated AI systems. ## The Myth of Practice Many users claim that chatbots serve as training tools for real-life conversations with bosses or partners. Turkle rejects this, noting that the 'warm soup of total acceptance' provided by LLMs is not a substitute for real interaction. Instead of practicing, users become addicted to the unconditional validation that only machines provide. ## Fundamental Limits of Machines AI lacks the essential human experiences of death, illness, pain, and love. Because machines cannot care about the outcomes of human lives, they are fundamentally incapable of replacing human conversation. Relying on them for intimate support risks eroding our capacity to empathize and maintain contact with the reality of others. ## Addressing the Loneliness Crisis Turkle argues that the current loneliness crisis is a result of humans abandoning each other, not a lack of technology. She suggests that resources currently poured into massive data centers could be better utilized for direct human support, such as elderly care, rather than fueling systems that further isolate individuals. ## Hope for Future Pushback Despite the widespread adoption of AI, Turkle remains hopeful that public awareness is growing. Recent discussions regarding extinction risks and systemic AI errors have encouraged people to scrutinize the intimate costs of technology. She believes society is becoming more willing to evaluate the hidden price of our deepening digital reliance. ## Sources covering this story - https://www.wired.com/story/maybe-chatbots-shouldnt-get-to-say-i-or-me/ — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._