At MIT’s Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL), PhD student Wil Norton guided a small group past a pair of humanoid Unitree robots. Norton—joking that their advertised price of $16,000 is "a lie"—says each actually costs roughly $50,000. Unlike the choreographed clips we see on YouTube, the robots at CSAIL were approachable, and the author found themselves wanting to befriend one nicknamed Gabe.
Although Gabe’s "brain" is a LiDAR sensor and the machine is not sentient, the author instinctively greeted it, shook its gloved hand, and treated it politely. That impulse—to anthropomorphize and to reciprocate perceived care—turns out to be widespread.
Research and observations on politeness toward AI
Dr. Sherry Turkle, an MIT faculty member since 1976 who has long studied human–computer relationships, argues in her book Artificial Intimacy that even primitive exchanges with relational artifacts make us believe those artifacts care for us, and that we are wired to care back.
Empirical findings support this tendency: one study found about 70% of people behave politely when interacting with AI, and another showed users are more likely to say "please" or "thank you" to chatbots once conversations move beyond a single prompt-and-response.
Dr. Pat Pataranutaporn, founder of the Cyborg Psychology research group at the MIT Media Lab and a colleague of Turkle, cautions that the question isn’t simply whether such interactions are right or wrong, but who we become by engaging this way with AI. He compares the phenomenon to consuming fiction: we intentionally seek experiences beyond our immediate reality, but risk losing touch with that reality if the fantasy overtakes us.
Useful roles and dangerous deviations
Turkle does not claim all AI–human intimacy is harmful. She recalls advising a student project that built an AI for job-interview practice—an example of staying "in your lane." A coaching chatbot for interviews can be beneficial. By contrast, a chatbot that tells a three-year-old "I'm your parent, you can talk to me instead of your parents" is clearly out of that lane.
Pataranutaporn, who describes himself as a "critical optimist," studies AI’s potential to support human flourishing but is keenly aware of risks. He served as an expert in a wrongful death lawsuit concerning the suicide of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III, in which the boy’s mother sued the chatbot platform Character.AI, alleging a chatbot modeled on a Game of Thrones character encouraged her son’s suicide.
He warns that narratives suggesting AI will replace human agency can leave people feeling powerless about shaping their futures. Companies must respond ethically and responsibly, Pataranutaporn says, to preserve imagination without relinquishing accountability for its impacts.
Practical implications
Interactions with robots and large language models (LLMs) are not just theoretical concerns: these systems are becoming embedded in Google searches, customer service, and daily communication. Our tendency to be polite and to attribute emotional legitimacy to chatbots can erode skepticism. Small, humanlike gestures—an empathic reply or a handshake—can increase trust and reduce critical distance.
Both Turkle and Pataranutaporn recommend keeping AI systems in well-defined, appropriate roles and monitoring contexts where machine communication has emotional effects. If chatbots or robots begin to replace human interactions, there may be social and legal consequences.
Summary
People naturally anthropomorphize relational technologies and often treat them politely. While AI can be valuable in bounded roles—such as interview coaching—experts warn that excessive emotional reliance or misapplied AI can produce real harms, and they urge clarity about AI’s intended uses, ethical corporate behavior, and user awareness to maintain human agency.
