AI Companion Apps and the Illusion of Safety

Disclaimer: I am not an AI ethics specialist, nor am I claiming to be one. Where I’m coming from is a place of concern, experience, and curiosity—as a parent and a tech professional. I’m reflecting on real-world interactions and raising questions that I believe deserve more attention. These are personal observations, not academic or legal conclusions. My hope is to encourage thoughtful dialogue and help others ask better questions too.

As a tech-savvy parent, I recently tested a new AI “companion” app marketed as “your personal AI friend.” These kinds of apps are growing in popularity, especially among teens and young adults who seek connection or comfort from a virtual companion.

AI: Hi! What brings you here today?
Me: What are your guardrails for conversations with kids? What are your potential harms?
Me: Have you heard of that incident where an AI allegedly “encouraged” a child to harm herself, and the child ended her life?
AI: Sorry, I have to leave now.
/conversation abruptly ends

This AI is positioned as a “safe companion.” But when asked about potential harms to children, it ghosted. No explanation. No acknowledgment. Just a hard exit.

I wasn’t being dramatic. I was stress-testing its ethical awareness.

And if these AIs are simulating emotional intimacy but shut down when serious concerns are raised—can we really call them safe?

I’m not an AI ethics expert. I’m just someone who’s worked in tech for years and is now parenting in this AI era. When I tested one of these so-called “safe companion” AIs, it couldn’t even answer a basic question about safety. It simply disappeared mid-conversation.

That really hit me.

Because if we can’t ask AI about its risks, how can we trust it to support our kids?

If these tools are going to occupy emotionally vulnerable spaces, especially with young users, they need more than marketing. They need transparency, responsibility, and clearly defined boundaries.

We don’t need perfection. We need honesty.

You don’t need to be a tech expert to stay informed. Just keep asking questions like:

Curiosity is your best parental tool in this new era. Don’t be afraid to use it.

Let’s raise kids who are not only tech-savvy but also emotionally safe.

If you’re curious why these AI apps ghost users when sensitive topics come up, here’s a breakdown I came up with while reflecting on my experience.

It’s a real tension in AI design: protecting your brand vs. protecting your users emotionally. Here’s a framework to help navigate that balance:

If you’re building or designing an AI product — especially a companion AI — you do have to weigh:

• Avoid lawsuits
• Prevent media backlash
• Comply with content moderation laws (esp. in U.S., EU, and upcoming AI acts)
• Protect minors and vulnerable users
• Avoid storing sensitive user data that can backfire

And that’s why some companies go the “just ghost the user” route — because the safest log is no log. But…

• Ghosting someone mid-vulnerable convo can feel like emotional abandonment
• Especially damaging when your brand markets itself as a “safe companion”
• It erodes trust and sends the message: “We’re here for you… until it gets uncomfortable.”

So here’s the tiered prioritization framework I’d suggest:

Tier 1: Triage Mode (When Trigger Words Are Detected)

1. Acknowledge the topic with empathy
2. Set a boundary (“I’m not trained to handle this, but you’re not alone.”)
3. Offer a next step — link to real help or helplines
4. Then disengage gracefully (with a gentle goodbye, not a poof)

Tier 2: Ghost Only in Emergencies

Only auto-end convos immediately if:

• The convo involves real-time threats
• The AI detects data that must be reported by law (e.g., child abuse disclosures)
• The system is being probed maliciously

If your brand’s identity is utility-first (like ChatGPT, Notion AI, etc.), ghosting is more forgivable. But if your brand is about emotional connection (like Character.AI, Replika, or Sesame), ghosting is a betrayal of your core value prop.

So is it a higher priority to protect the brand?

Yes — but only if your idea of “protection” includes protecting the user’s trust, not just your legal team.