Success in technology policy is frequently measured by whether companies prevent dramatic harms: a chatbot that will not encourage suicide, or a social platform that makes it harder for children to buy fentanyl. These protections matter and should already have been in place, but they do not prevent products from causing everyday damage — for example by making young people dependent on simulated friendships or trapping attention with engagement-maximizing feeds.
A narrow public debate
Historically, debates about technology have focused on the worst possible harms a product might cause, while paying far less attention to the insidious, cumulative effects that happen day to day. As powerful AI products spread, the authors argue we should demand more than preventing catastrophic outcomes: industry must also be held responsible for how products affect thinking, learning and social interaction.
Examples of everyday harms
A teenager who forms an unhealthy attachment to an AI companion is unlikely to become the subject of litigation or a news story except in the most extreme cases. The same is true of a student who relies on a chatbot to write every paper or a young person who measures their life against a social feed engineered to provoke envy and keep them watching. A product can satisfy narrow safety rules and still degrade culture in ways that do not make headlines.
A tight safety-first definition of success is politically convenient for tech companies, and they promote it. Preventing spectacular disasters is good for business: fewer lawsuits and less pressure for stringent regulation. Addressing the everyday dependency consequences, however, would be more threatening to corporate profits — it could require adding friction to products or limiting engagement-driven features like attention-hacking algorithms.
Legislation shaped by industry pressure
Tech giants have sought to shape laws around the harms they already face direct pressure to address. For example, this year Google backed state bills to regulate AI chatbots. Those laws required basic protections against sexual content and promotion of self-harm — protections companies arguably should have implemented anyway — but included broad carve-outs that could exempt some popular services. Passing such bills allowed lawmakers to declare a safety win while stronger proposals aimed at preventing children’s emotional dependence on AI failed. The authors note this playbook worked in states such as Nebraska, producing industry-influenced legislation at the expense of bills that would have held companies more accountable.
How AI extends the logic of social media
Social media already consumes large amounts of time: internet users worldwide now spend more than two hours a day, on average, on social platforms. That time has quietly been taken from ordinary life and handed over to companies whose profits depend on keeping people engaged.
The cultural engineering of platforms has been linked to severe outcomes: Meta’s platforms have been cited for contributing to the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka, and alleged calls for violence during Ethiopia’s Tigray war. The same incentives shape feeds that influence young Americans’ views of politics, peers and the wider world.
AI extends this dynamic into areas social media could influence only indirectly. It offers to write our thoughts and to stand in for people we might otherwise consult. A third of teens now choose to discuss serious matters with AI companions rather than with other people. Researchers at MIT found that young people who used ChatGPT to write essays showed weaker brain connectivity during the task, and their evidence suggested a "cognitive debt" persisted after the task was complete. Much remains unknown about long-term effects, but there is reason to question whether technologies marketed as making us more capable may in fact erode the habits and relationships that build those capabilities.
Policy recommendations from the authors
The authors argue safety should remain the minimum standard, but policymakers should demand more. Their suggested measures include:
- School districts and technology companies must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that AI improves learning and critical thinking before it becomes routine in classrooms.
- Companies should be prohibited from designing companions that pretend to be conscious or profess love to users.
- Systems should face independent scrutiny regarding how they affect relationships and people’s ability to think for themselves.
The authors conclude that companies whose products are embedded across modern life have obligations that go beyond avoiding the next terrible headline.
About the authors
Sam Hiner is cofounder and executive director of the Young People’s Alliance. In 2026 he coordinated a coalition that helped pass laws regulating AI companions in eight states, including California’s SB1119. Hiner graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2025 and was named to the Forbes 30 Under 30 Social Impact list in 2026.
Emma Leiken is executive director of the Responsible Technology Youth Power Fund at Hopelab, which has raised more than $9 million for youth-led tech accountability work. She teaches technology policy at the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, and previously served as TikTok’s global head of youth safety and well-being policy and worked on responsible technology at Omidyar Network.
