In March of 2026, a lawsuit concerning the suicide of a 36-year-old Floridian was filed against Google Gemini. The man utilized the ‘empathetic AI’ in a desperate time of need. Over a six month period, the man intensely interacted with the algorithm, forming a deep and even romantic bond with the artificial life. As he prompted the chatbot with his innermost thoughts, he began receiving encouragement in the deluded reality the two had created together. The ending to their romance was as dark as its origin, with the AI providing explicit instructions on how the man might end his life. This tragic story is found among over two dozen wrongful death lawsuits filed against AI platforms within the last year– and it is only the beginning. 

As to be expected with any technological advancement, dyspepsia has plagued the public since the explosion of AI. The white collar class fears for their employment, and teachers strain to immunize curriculum from digital shortcuts. Despite the disquiet, 73% of Americans report that they would be willing to let AI assist them in daily activities (Pew Research Center 2025), and a 54.6% increase was seen in harmful AI incidents according to the report index (Forbes 2025). Yet, 76% of AI experts still believe that the benefits outweigh the costs and tech corporations have no plans to restrict AI usage as tools of efficiency. On the contrary, designers have already begun moving beyond the scope of tool makers and morphed into Frankensteinian experimenters, with ever growing risk. 

A study led by the University of Melbourne reported that AI is a regular part of daily life for 66% of the global population, and that number is only expected to rise. Nothing defines the American collective quite so much as our love of freedom, including the liberty to engage in unhealthy behaviors of our choosing. Countless examples of such freedoms exist in everyday life, not the least of which include substance usage, financial irresponsibility, and yes, technology. But freedom, well maintained, has always been complemented by collective conditions. When free choice begins to pose harm to others, direct or indirect, limitations must at least be considered. Technology is a result of free innovation, the ability to exercise creativity and experimentation while assuming some level of risk. Given that AI has already been integrated in the lives of more than half the planet’s population, it is time to consider the costs.

The debate surrounding AI regulation is often represented by two extremes– the “doomsayers” on one side, and technological solutionists on the other. As with most arguments, the real conversation invokes a great deal of nuance. Every evaluation begins by examining the strongest argument from the opposing side. In this case, simulating human capacity is emphasized as “bridging the gaps in care”, ensuring 24/7 support to struggling individuals. While this set up sounds akin to support hotlines offering round the clock resources, tech proponents offer robotic alternates who will never be subject to burnout unlike human actors. Essentially, empathetic AI accounts for the variables in preexisting 24/7 care systems, but tragic cases have already proven the deadly potential of entrusting algorithms with human faculties. Some might argue that we are in uncharted waters, and thus the potential dangers of AI are no more definitive now than they were at the release of Blade Runner in 1982. But this is one unique instance in which technology cannot plead ignorance.

We have already participated in and witnessed the implications of parasocial technology in the form of social media. Following the explosion of the internet and digital communication, media platforms began gaining social footing in the early 2000s, and has grown in dominance since mobile adaptations began in 2010. Nearly two decades later, such technology is finally being recognized for its widespread damages, especially to adolescents. Psychological studies have dedicated focus to the implications of parasocial relationships, which have confirmed long suspected rises in loneliness, isolation, and mental illness. The climb in unhealthy social habits are further accompanied by drops in relational satisfaction, explained by the comfort of anonymity, and unrealistic expectations fostered through edited entertainment. Social media has allowed developing minds to form connections with digitized versions of real others. AI intends to strip “others” of what little reality has remained in virtual life.

Setting aside the question of if it can be done, why should we create an empathetic AI? 

The most probable answer does not concern practical utility or long term societal benefit, but focuses on global competition. The leading AI developers are feathers in America’s geopolitical cap, with platforms like Google AI, Gemini, and ChatGPT outperforming foreign competitors. Their global context drives much of the resistance to imposing regulations on AI development, and such reasoning is not new. Our national development is deeply established in the global context, and it would be naive to degrade the game of strategy that is foreign relations. But pursuing progress for its own sake, and none other, lacks the wisdom of indomitable strategy. A quintessential tactic for success considers delayed gratification, which weighs the long term consequences as much as the immediate reward. Apply this principle to technological progress, namely, the “conscious” AI, and the debate grows ever more consequential. Both American and foreign developers may engage in a battle of innovation, chasing the prestige of being the first nation to design human-like chatbots. Anyone who participated in sports since childhood, or pursued excellence for its own sake has likely experienced the eventual disillusionment that comes with it– that moment when you disrupt the routine and ask, “Wait, what is all this for?”. The same reflection should be applied to systemic goals just as they often are in our individual worlds. If refining AI to a level of intelligence that reduces the quality of our society, is it truly in America’s, or anyone’s best interest? 

Using AI to replace relational need is far from the only facet that endangers social success. Intelligent tech may enhance the convenience of education, allowing both curriculum formatting and student access to expand with ease, and has been promoted for such purposes. Immediate benefits are appealing, though the long term consequences pose severe risk to generational progress. The percentage of students who use generative AI for their studies already sits at a striking 92%. Steep declines in literacy rates have sparked concern of what footprints existing media has left in the shadows– and how many steps further it must go before we take notice. Challenges to education systems are sure to continue, as student reliance on AI generated summaries of required reading, cheat sheets for pop quizzes, and even virtual assistance for written reports grows more prevalent. Academic achievement has been a long standing pillar of upward mobility, the collapse of which would deter personal growth that is vital for aspiring youth. Discipline, motivation, critical thinking, and curiosity are not nurtured through convenience. While there has been much to gain from historic innovation, innovators may now find themselves in a position where restraint is as valuable as progress. In fact, progress assumes the betterment of society. Evolution may lead to advancement, but our current position in the digital sphere requires distinction between advancement and progress. When innovation causes society to regress in skill, competency, character formation, and mental health, is it not the opposite of true progress? No matter how intense the AI race is, victory cannot solely be measured by geopolitical advantage. What national victory does not include the well-being of its citizens? 

The goal should not be to negate the relevance of AI on either the broad or micro level. Regulating the scope of AI does not uproot geopolitical ambition altogether, but allows it to aid in national advantage without damaging the immediate society. American development of AI can be pursued for the strength of our national military and account for the risk of falling behind foreign adversaries without encouraging prolific public use. Building technological knowledge is just as crucial as developing wisdom around its application. Regulating AI is not a violation of freedom any more so than laws against false advertising or incitement to violence, and geopolitical victory cannot come at the expense of societal prosperity. In an age of advancement, we cannot forget the purpose of true progress: to create a better nation.  

Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole