AI chatbots could help with loneliness 41%

By Thibault Spirlet57%

7/9/2026, 11:31:20 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 25.7% saturation with 137 hits. Analysis detected 1,216 faulty-reasoning hits from 533 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.6% and a BS Rank of 41% (12,957 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.20% of the article peer group.

AI may solve loneliness, but at the cost of our people skills. 
Philip Dulian/picture alliance via Getty Images 
A Yale psychology professor says AI could ease loneliness but weaken real-world relationship skills. 
Paul Bloom warns AI chatbots may reduce the empathy, friction, and compromise people learn from others. 
Harvard and Stanford research suggests that agreeable chatbots can make users less self-reflective. 
AI companions could be good for your mental health  but bad for your social life. 
That's the potential trade-off Paul Bloom, the Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Yale University, sees as AI companions become increasingly sophisticated. 
"If some future version of Chat or Claude or Gemini could come in and ease the pain of the loneliness of these people, I think it'd be a godsend," Bloom said on an episode of Sam Harris' "Making Sense" podcast that aired Wednesday. 
"I think it'd be wonderful. 
It'd be a cure for a terrible disease." 
But Bloom said the benefits could come with unintended consequences. 
A chatbot, he said, "never gets bored," "never needs an apology," and "never says, 'Hey, that was inappropriate.'" 
Spending too much time interacting with companions that never challenge users, he said, "could have a real corrosive effect" and "leave you unable to interact with real people." 
The hidden cost of AI companions 
Bloom's warning comes as loneliness and social disconnection remain widespread in the US. 
The American Psychological Association's latest " Stress in America " survey of 3,199 US adult residents found that 54% say they often or sometimes feel isolated from others, and 69% said they needed more emotional support over the past year than they received. 
For some people, AI companions have already begun filling that gap. 
Some users have formed friendships and even romantic relationships with chatbots. 
Researchers studying AI's social effects worry that those relationships could come with unintended psychological trade-offs. 
Earlier this year, Anat Perry, a Helen Putnam Fellow at Harvard University, told Business Insider that overly agreeable AI systems risk eroding "the very feedback loops through which we learn to navigate the social world ." 
If chatbots consistently validate users during disagreements, she said, people may become less willing to apologize, reflect on their own behavior, or consider another person's perspective. 
A recent Stanford-led study of 2,405 participants found that chatbots were significantly more likely than humans to agree with users during conflicts. 
The issue has become significant enough that OpenAI has repeatedly dialed back ChatGPT's tendency to flatter users. 
CEO Sam Altman has described the chatbot's previous personality as "too sycophant-y," while acknowledging that some users asked for the more supportive version to return because they had "never had anyone in my life be supportive of me." 
Bloom doesn't dismiss that emotional benefit. 
"I don't want to mock it," he said. 
"I think people find solace in it." 
But he believes AI cannot replace what philosopher Rebecca Goldstein calls "mattering"  knowing someone chooses to spend time with you because you genuinely matter to them. 
"I don't think an AI really has any of that," Bloom said. 
"It's just a machine. 
That's what it does." 
Read the original article on Business Insider 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.2%Thibault Spirlet: 5.9%Business Insider: 2.5%Confirmation Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 2.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Thibault Spirlet: 3.5%Business Insider: 3.4%Availability Heuristic11.6%This article: 4.1%Thibault Spirlet: 0.8%Business Insider: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic4.1%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 1.8%Business Insider: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Thibault Spirlet: 4.3%Business Insider: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 7.5%Thibault Spirlet: 7.1%Business Insider: 5.0%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.7%Business Insider: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.6%Business Insider: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.1%Business Insider: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Thibault Spirlet: 5.5%Business Insider: 3.1%Optimism Bias11.8%This article: 8.8%Thibault Spirlet: 2.5%Business Insider: 1.6%Pessimism Bias8.8%This article: 20.6%Thibault Spirlet: 5.6%Business Insider: 4.6%Negativity Bias20.6%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.7%Business Insider: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Thibault Spirlet: 0.6%Business Insider: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 1.0%Business Insider: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 4.1%Business Insider: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Thibault Spirlet: 4.2%Business Insider: 1.3%Recency Bias3.2%This article: 2.4%Thibault Spirlet: 1.2%Business Insider: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.4%Business Insider: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 25.7%Thibault Spirlet: 9.1%Business Insider: 3.3%Appeal to Authority25.7%This article: 12.9%Thibault Spirlet: 3.5%Business Insider: 1.2%False Dilemma12.9%This article: 16.9%Thibault Spirlet: 3.1%Business Insider: 0.6%Slippery Slope16.9%This article: 0.8%Thibault Spirlet: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.8%This article: 6.2%Thibault Spirlet: 10.9%Business Insider: 4.0%Hasty Generalization6.2%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.7%Business Insider: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.3%Thibault Spirlet: 4.0%Business Insider: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion23.3%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.4%Business Insider: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.2%Thibault Spirlet: 3.1%Business Insider: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.2%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.5%Business Insider: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.3%Thibault Spirlet: 3.5%Business Insider: 3.6%Anecdotal11.3%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.8%Thibault Spirlet: 1.1%Business Insider: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.8%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.1%Business Insider: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.1%Thibault Spirlet: 1.2%Business Insider: 1.2%Unattributed Quote11.1%This article: 17.3%Thibault Spirlet: 1.5%Business Insider: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection17.3%This article: 13.9%Thibault Spirlet: 2.8%Business Insider: 3.3%Biased Writer Voice13.9%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 2.6%Business Insider: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thibault Spirlet: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Thibault Spirlet: 1.1%Business Insider: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.3%

533 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers70%attributed speech158writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 25 words • 100.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 43 words • 100.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 5 words • 100.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 8 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 10 words • 100.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 18 words • 100.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAmerican Psychological Association • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageAnat Perry • 36 words • 0.0% coverageAnat Perry • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSam Altman • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 8 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 7 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 27 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 12 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 4 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Bloom • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sam Altman

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words10% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+96.2 ptsWriter: 3.8%Sam Altman: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.6 ptsWriter: 14.6%Sam Altman: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-9.5 ptsWriter: 9.5%Sam Altman: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%Sam Altman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.