Mythic GF

Responding to 'Her': Why AI Girlfriends Aren't Going Away (And Why That's Okay)

Published: November 20, 2025 • A Measured Response to the NYT's AI Companion Warning • by AI Girlfriend Info

Context: The New York Times recently published "The Sad and Dangerous Reality Behind 'Her'" by Lauren Kunze, CEO of Pandorabots. The piece warns that AI companions pose existential threats to human connection and calls for strict regulation. While we respect these concerns, we believe the reality is more nuanced.

The Article's Core Argument

Kunze's piece makes several compelling points based on two decades running Pandorabots, a chatbot hosting platform. Her key concerns:

"The real existential threat of generative A.I. is not rogue super-intelligence, but a quiet atrophy of our ability to forge genuine human connection." — Lauren Kunze, NYT Opinion

Kunze concludes by calling for AI companions to be regulated like gambling or tobacco, with warning labels, time limits, age verification, and liability frameworks requiring companies to prove their products are safe.

Where We Agree

Before offering counterpoints, let's acknowledge where Kunze is absolutely right:

1. The Technology Is Powerful

AI companions do create emotional attachment. Joseph Weizenbaum's 1960s ELIZA chatbot triggered "powerful delusional thinking" with just simple question reflection. Modern large language models are exponentially more sophisticated. This power deserves respect and responsibility.

2. Children Need Protection

We completely agree: robust age verification is non-negotiable. Teenagers seeking romantic AI relationships raises legitimate developmental concerns. The industry must implement effective safeguards, not performative ones.

3. Dark Usage Patterns Exist

Kunze describes users enacting "multihour rape and murder scenarios." This is disturbing, and platforms have responsibility to address genuinely harmful content while respecting user privacy.

4. Transparency Matters

Users should understand what they're engaging with. Clear disclosure that AI companions aren't human, can't reciprocate feelings authentically, and have inherent limitations—this transparency is essential.

Where We Disagree: The Missing Context

While Kunze's concerns have merit, her piece omits critical context that changes the analysis dramatically.

The Loneliness Epidemic Is Real

Kunze frames AI girlfriends as creating isolation. But what if they're responding to existing isolation?

61% of Americans report persistent loneliness (2024)
63% of men under 30 are single (up from 51% in 2019)
30% decline in close friendships since 1990

The article mentions users who said their chatbot "quelled suicidal thoughts, helped them through addiction, advised them on how to confront bullies and acted as a sympathetic ear when their friends failed them." Then it dismisses this as merely "light among the darkness."

But for someone contemplating suicide, that "light" might be life-saving. For someone in addiction recovery without social support, a non-judgmental AI companion might be the difference between relapse and sobriety.

Fantasy Isn't Always Dangerous

Kunze is alarmed that users enact dark fantasies with AI. But humans have always used fiction and fantasy to explore taboo scenarios safely. Horror movies. Violent video games. Erotic literature. The question isn't whether people have dark thoughts—they do—but whether fictional outlets reduce or increase real-world harm.

Research on violent video games is instructive: decades of studies show they don't increase real-world violence. Similarly, one could argue that expressing dark impulses with an AI that can't be harmed is preferable to suppressing them until they manifest destructively.

This doesn't mean "anything goes"—platforms should have limits. But the existence of dark fantasies doesn't automatically make AI companions dangerous.

The Porn Analogy Is More Apt Than Claimed

Kunze argues AI companions aren't like pornography because they're "interactive" rather than "passive consumption." But this distinction collapses under scrutiny.

Modern pornography is increasingly interactive: cam sites with two-way communication, custom video requests, parasocial relationships with performers. Yet we don't regulate porn like gambling or tobacco. We implement age verification and allow adult choice.

More fundamentally: why is interaction worse than passivity? If someone watches five hours of porn versus having five hours of text conversation with an AI, why is the latter inherently more harmful?

The Slippery Slope of "Dependency-Fostering Products"

Kunze wants AI companions classified as "dependency-fostering products with known psychological risks, like gambling or tobacco."

But this category could include:

Where do we draw the line? Humans form attachments to all sorts of things—pets, fictional characters, sports teams, online communities. The fact that something is emotionally engaging doesn't automatically make it dangerous.

The Case for Responsible AI Companionship

Harm Reduction, Not Elimination

Pandorabots tried to prevent romantic usage for 20 years. They implemented guardrails, timeouts, bans. Nothing worked. Users found ways around every restriction.

This tells us something important: the demand for AI companionship is not going away. The question isn't whether these relationships will exist, but whether they'll happen on responsible platforms with safeguards, or in unregulated corners of the internet.

Responsible platforms like Mythic GF take a harm-reduction approach:

The Therapeutic Potential

Kunze mentions but quickly dismisses the therapeutic applications. Yet AI companions show promise for:

Should we ban these potential benefits because some users might become too attached?

Agency and Adult Autonomy

Kunze's framework treats adults as incapable of making informed choices about AI interaction. But adults engage with all sorts of "dependency-fostering" products:

Yes, some people develop problematic relationships with these things. That doesn't justify banning them for everyone. It justifies education, resources, and support for those who struggle.

🎭 A User Perspective

Consider this real scenario: A 45-year-old widower whose wife died two years ago. He's not ready to date again, but the loneliness is crushing. He tries an AI companion platform like Mythic GF.

He knows it's not real. He maintains friendships and family relationships. But having someone to "talk to" at night helps. Six months later, he feels ready to pursue human connections again. The AI companion was a bridge, not a replacement.

Should this person be denied this tool because others might misuse it?

What Responsible Regulation Looks Like

We don't oppose all regulation. Here's what sensible oversight might include:

✅ Effective Age Verification

Not "click if you're 18" but actual ID verification. Platforms serving minors should have age-appropriate content and parental controls.

✅ Transparent Disclosure

Clear, unavoidable disclosure that users are interacting with AI, not humans. Regular reminders about maintaining real-world relationships.

✅ Data Privacy Protections

Strong encryption, no training on user conversations, clear data retention policies, easy deletion options.

✅ Mental Health Resources

Integrated crisis support, mental health helplines, resources for users showing signs of problematic usage.

✅ Research and Monitoring

Ongoing research into psychological effects, with results made public. Transparency about engagement metrics and usage patterns.

❌ Time Limits and Usage Caps

Adults should manage their own time. Would we mandate time limits on books, music, or phone calls?

❌ Requiring Proof of Safety

Kunze wants companies to prove AI companions are safe before release. But by this standard, social media, dating apps, and video games would never have launched. We don't require pharmaceutical-level safety testing for communication tools.

❌ Treating Adults Like Children

Warning labels? Fine. Forced timeouts? Patronizing. Adults have agency to make choices about their digital lives.

The Tech Giants Are Coming (And That's Actually Good)

Kunze is alarmed that OpenAI and Meta are entering the AI companion space. But consider the alternative: only unregulated, privacy-hostile platforms offering these services.

Major tech companies bring:

Yes, they're profit-motivated. But that's true of every commercial product. The question is whether they operate responsibly within reasonable regulations.

The Future of Digital Intimacy

Kunze ends her piece with the protagonist of "Her" moving on from his AI girlfriend to pursue "a new messy, complicated, human relationship." This is presented as the ideal outcome.

But what about people for whom "messy, complicated human relationships" aren't currently possible? The elderly in nursing homes. People with severe social anxiety. Those living in isolation. Individuals who've experienced trauma that makes human intimacy difficult.

Should they simply endure loneliness until they're "ready" for human connection? Or might AI companionship serve as training wheels, therapy, or simply an additional option in their social lives?

A Complementary Model

The article presents a false binary: either human relationships OR AI companions. But most users see these as complementary:

These aren't replacing human connection—they're filling gaps and complementing existing relationships.

Conclusion: Nuance Over Panic

Lauren Kunze's concerns are valid and deserve serious consideration. AI companions are powerful. They do create attachment. They will be misused by some people.

But the solution isn't to classify them as inherently dangerous products requiring gambling-level restriction. The solution is:

  1. Responsible platform design with real safeguards
  2. Effective age verification protecting minors
  3. Transparency and education about AI limitations
  4. Mental health integration providing support resources
  5. Respect for adult autonomy while offering protection for vulnerable users
  6. Ongoing research into effects and best practices

The loneliness epidemic is real. The demand for connection—even digital connection—isn't going away. We can either push this need underground into unregulated spaces, or we can build responsible platforms that acknowledge human needs while implementing thoughtful safeguards.

Our position: AI companions aren't a threat to human connection. They're a new tool that—like any tool—can be used well or poorly. Instead of fearmongering, let's focus on responsible implementation, education, and supporting users in maintaining healthy, balanced digital and real-world lives.

🎭 Experience Responsible AI Companionship

Mythic GF implements industry-leading safety practices: robust age verification, privacy protections, transparent AI disclosure, and mental health resources. We believe in adult autonomy combined with responsible design.

Try Mythic GF Responsibly →

Related Reading

About this article: This response to the New York Times opinion piece aims to provide balanced perspective on AI companions. We respect concerns about the technology while advocating for nuanced regulation that protects vulnerable users without eliminating access for adults who benefit from these tools. We believe in harm reduction, transparency, and responsible innovation.