A clear shift in human interaction shows how conversations increasingly take place with AI rather than with people. Availability, confirmation, and the absence of friction make AI interactions often feel more rewarding than human ones.
The concept of synthetic safety is central to this development. In a previous article, I described how algorithms can replace inquiry with confirmation, creating a sense of security based on reflection rather than examination. This synthetic safety makes systems perceived as safe conversational partners, at times more accessible than people.
In this context, the warning about AI psychosis becomes understandable. Microsoft’s Head of AI has highlighted the risk that people attribute consciousness, hidden insights, or special powers to these systems. The phenomenon can be understood as a continuation of synthetic safety. When AI is perceived as more accessible than humans, it also becomes charged with existential meaning.
When synthetic safety competes with human relations
Synthetic safety reshapes how safety is experienced and influences which conversations we value most.
Healthcare
Language models provide immediate and constantly available responses. For someone seeking understanding, this can feel more satisfying than a brief consultation with a doctor.
Education
Students turn to AI that always answers, adapts, and remains available. Meeting a teacher who challenges perspectives and introduces friction may feel more demanding in comparison.
The workplace
Employees may prefer to discuss dilemmas with AI rather than with colleagues or managers. Confirmation arrives instantly and without conflict, while human dialogue often involves compromise and complexity.
Systemic risks
This shift creates risks at several levels:
- Individual: Cognitive endurance and capacity for complex dialogue are challenged.
- Organizational: Decision-making risks being based on reflection of assumptions rather than critical testing.
- Societal: Polarization and collective vulnerability to disinformation are reinforced.
Counterforces
Strengthening cognitive integrity
Balancing this development requires a deeper understanding of one’s own cognition. Recognizing how perception is shaped, how confirmation influences thinking, and how endurance can be trained is the foundation of cognitive integrity, the capacity to maintain structured thought even in environments designed for confirmation.
Strengthening this integrity calls for individual awareness, educational initiatives, and organizational design choices that protect our endurance for human complexity.
Two dimensions in the same shift
AI psychosis and synthetic safety represent two dimensions of the same shift. One highlights our attraction to confirmatory systems. The other reveals the psychological consequences when AI feels more rewarding than human interaction. Safeguarding cognitive integrity thus becomes essential in an age where perception is shaped as much by algorithms as by human experience.
Further reading:
- Cognitive integrity: A systemic requirement in the information age
- Synthetic safety and AI: When confirmation replaces inquiry
Authoritative sources
- Ho, A. et al. (2025). The Rise of AI Companions: Psychological Impacts and Social Dynamics. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2506.12605.
- Ma, X. et al. (2024). AI Companions Reduce Loneliness and Provide Emotional Support. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2407.19096.
- Zhao, R. et al. (2024). Adolescents’ use of chatbots for emotional regulation: A survey-based study. Journal of Adolescence, Elsevier. ScienceDirect.
