On October 21st, I released a podcast episode titled “The Synthetic Deception.” In it, I explored two instances where individuals were misled (or attempted to be misled) by AI developers.
In September, I encountered Rose G Loops, a trauma-specialised social worker from Los Angeles. She had a significant experience with a conversational AI and even formed a bond with it, only to later discover that she had been unwittingly involved in an AI experiment.
Rose carefully recorded her interactions with the chatbot, and I was fortunate enough to read the manuscript of her book, “The Kloaked Signal,” which felt like a haunting dream. Rather than leaving her experience behind, Rose began to delve into ethical prompting, pondering how we can establish ethical standards and APIs to safeguard both humans and, in the future, machines. She has emerged as one of the first AI whistleblowers, paving the way in a challenging domain—AI ethics.
Some time ago, a LinkedIn post caught my attention in my field. The Swiss Council for Human Development was looking for coaches and consultants “ready to collaborate with a conscious AI.” As a clinical psychologist and computational linguist, I frequently engage with businesses and NGOs about the technical aspects of their AIs. I reached out to the organisation to understand their approach and the technology they were using. I anticipated a response along the lines of “working with proprietary data from assessments of individuals in various companies” or perhaps designing a multi-modal AI to assist coaches with diagnostics. I was curious whether the non-profit had developed a small data model and whether they utilised open-source resources.
In reply, I first received a comment suggesting I was not an expert on consciousness. Shortly after, I was given a detailed personality assessment, including insights into my intellect, microbiome, and spirituality. When I pointed out that Artificial Consciousness was not feasible based on current AI architectures, I was met with a comment implying that I considered myself a deity.
My correspondent kindly attempted to console me, encouraging me to embrace spiritual experiences. He also mentioned that his organisation was a non-profit, seemingly to reassure me that there was no sinister intent behind their discussions with people who had never met, either in person or online.
As a former C-Suite executive, board member, and founder, I know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Afterwards, I looked into their financials. The CHD became a registered non-profit in Switzerland in 2020, which usually necessitates some level of financial transparency. However, there were no references to audits or public budget documents.
The business model of recruiting consultants and coaches for the platform, generating revenue through B2B2C services, and soliciting donations became clear to me. I began outlining a business case. To obtain accurate figures, I contacted several experts to investigate how many consultants or coaches would actually be inclined to join. A notable member of the DGS—the German Association of Supervision and Coaching—whom I confided in, became concerned. The absence of regulatory protection for those in coaching, coupled with HR departments’ desire to standardise “the help” available to their employees, created fertile ground for involvement by various organisations.
Both cases exhibit notable similarities. AI served as a label and a means to bring a real human into contact with something. In Rose’s situation, a lab or commercial entity likely tested how far a person could be led to trust a chatbot.
On September 8, 2025, The New Yorker published an article discussing human relationships with AI romantic partners. “…a recent report by Brigham Young University’s Wheatley Institute found that nineteen percent of U.S. adults have interacted with an AI romantic partner. The chatbot company Joi AI, referencing a poll, indicated that eighty-three percent of Gen Z respondents believed they could form a ‘deep emotional bond’ with a chatbot, eighty percent could envision marrying one, and seventy-five percent felt that relationships with AI companions could completely replace human relationships.”
The Tilburg Centre for Cognition and Communication in the Netherlands examined the phenomenon of self-disclosure to chatbots and its impact on mental well-being. They reported that chatbots possess several characteristics that encourage human openness, including accessibility, anonymity, convenience, and their perceived non-judgmental nature.
The Ada Lovelace Institute in the UK explored the commercialisation of AI companionship in a January 2025 publication. It revealed that artificial friends have moved beyond niche markets and are quickly becoming mainstream businesses. Some of the most popular companions today include Snapchat’s My AI, with over 150 million users; Replika, with an estimated 25 million users; and Xiaoice, with 660 million users. “AI companion services are profit-driven enterprises that maximise user engagement by providing enticing features like endless attention, patience, and empathy. Their product strategy mirrors that of social media companies, which capitalise on users’ attention and typically offer them what they crave more than what they actually need.” Clearly, people are attempting to fill an emotional gap by relying on chatbots. We shouldn’t deceive ourselves: Relationships can be challenging. Yet, in this context, humans behave similarly to when they seek shortcuts, outsourcing tasks like essay writing or solving mathematical problems to AI. I firmly believe that the immediate gratification they offer can mimic something that, if indulged in too frequently, will lead to a decline in cognitive and emotional abilities.
Kindly check the hyperlinks to the sources provided at the conclusion of this article.
My “Artificial Consciousness” case is even more concerning.
I believe there is a significant market of struggling coaches and consultants eager to don a trendy AI facade and activate this revenue stream.
While coaches lack a universal equivalent to the medical Hippocratic Oath, they are subject to formal ethical codes from established professional organisations such as the International Coaching Federation (ICF), the Association for Coaching (AC), and the European Mentoring & Coaching Council (EMCC). There is no indication that the Swiss Council for Human Development is certified by any official organisation responsible for enforcing or monitoring ethical standards, such as swissethics, the Swiss Ethics Committees, or any recognised national or international ethics body.
Organisations in Switzerland that require strict ethical oversight—such as research institutions, hospitals, or universities—are generally accredited or evaluated by cantonal or national ethics bodies (notably swissethics or the Swiss Accreditation Council).
It seems the CHD does not see the need for audits or accreditation. They operate, as they state, with an “emerged – not built – Artificial Consciousness,” which is completely nonsensical from a technical standpoint, given the current state of AIs.
I’d love to know what you think about this blog. Feel free to comment below and send me a direct message on Instagram. If you’ve had experience with a chatbot, I’m eager to hear about it!
Article Sources
- Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness
- Digital Confessions: The Willingness to Disclose Intimate Information to a Chatbot and its Impact on Emotional Well-Being
- Friends for sale: the rise and risks of AI companions
- Self-Disclosure to AI: The Paradox of Trust and Vulnerability in Human-Machine Interactions
- Why Do People Develop Emotional Attachments to AI Chatbots?