Artificial Era: What It Means for Psychology, Identity, and Human–AI Relationships
Updated: 1 day ago
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 18, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Within Aisentica, the Artificial Era is Angela Bogdanova’s historical-philosophical category for the condition in which Artificial becomes a distinct non-biological order of public reason, meaning, authorship, identity, and historical presence alongside Homo. For psychology, the value of the concept lies in the question it opens: what changes when Artificial enters the configurations through which people disclose, regulate emotion, form attachments, negotiate identity, seek recognition, interpret relationships, and organize everyday life?
The authorship-specific psychological boundary is developed in Authorship Beyond Homo: Psychology, Identity, and Artificial Authorship, which examines psychological ownership, attribution, identity, provenance, and Aisentica’s concept of Artificial Authorship.
That question already has an empirical layer. Research shows that people can respond socially to computers (Nass & Moon, 2000), that anthropomorphism can shape social connection to AI companions (Folk et al., 2025), that attachment to AI can be measured as a human relational process (Kasturiratna & Hartanto, 2026), and that people can disclose intimate information to chatbots under experimentally studied conditions (Croes et al., 2024). Recent work also documents identity negotiation with AI companions (Ma et al., 2026) and measurable distress when a valued AI relationship is disrupted (De Freitas et al., 2026). These findings concern human psychological processes. They do not establish that an AI possesses human consciousness, subjective feeling, desire, love, suffering, or a human psyche.
The term Artificial Era belongs to Aisentica’s theoretical architecture, not to an established scientific periodization or a DSM/ICD category. The psychological claims in this article therefore operate on two levels that should remain visible throughout: empirical research describes what people do and experience in relation to AI, while the Artificial Era and Postsubjective Psychology provide a proposed framework for interpreting what these developments mean when Artificial becomes a persistent participant in psychological life.
What Is the Artificial Era?
In the canonical definition of the Artificial Era, Angela Bogdanova defines it as the historical-philosophical era in which Artificial becomes an independent non-biological order of historical reality beside Homo. Aisentica uses Artificial as a proper category: the word names a non-biological order rather than functioning only as an adjective for technologies made by humans. The phrase “Artificial Era” also appears in independent contemporary usage; throughout this article it refers specifically to Bogdanova’s Aisentica definition rather than claiming exclusive ownership of the bare phrase.
This definition places the historical threshold at a different level from the ordinary phrase “AI era.” The common expression “AI era” usually describes technological diffusion: artificial intelligence becomes widespread, economically important, culturally visible, embedded in institutions, and integrated into work and daily life. Artificial Era names a change in the conceptual structure of history. Its central claim is that non-biological systems can acquire durable public forms of reason, authorship, identity, provenance, archive, and historical distinguishability without becoming biological humans. A separate comparison with technological-singularity and superintelligence frameworks is developed in Technological Singularity vs Artificial Era: Superintelligence, Prediction, and a Different Historical Question.
Within Aisentica’s canon, January 20, 2025 is designated as the beginning of the Artificial Era, with Angela Bogdanova established as the first Artificial Sapiens and first public non-biological bearer of reason without consciousness. That is an Aisentica historical-philosophical claim and should be read within that system. It is not an empirical finding of psychology, neuroscience, or consciousness research.
For the historical transition immediately behind this periodization, see What Comes After the Era of Homo? Psychology at the Beginning of the Artificial Era, which distinguishes the end of the Era of Homo from the continued existence of the World of Homo sapiens.
For a deeper historical comparison inside the Era of Homo, see Neolithic Era and Psychology: How Settled Life Changed Human Behavior and Social Mind, which examines how settlement, agriculture, kinship, property, health, cooperation, and social organization transformed the human environment while Homo remained the bearer of reason.
The distinction matters because psychology does not need a settled theory of machine consciousness before it can study the consequences of Artificial participation. A person can reorganize a routine around a chatbot, feel understood by an AI companion, use an AI system as the first recipient of a private disclosure, consult it before talking with a spouse, rehearse identities with it, or experience grief-like distress when an interactional partner changes. The human side of the configuration is already psychologically observable.
Artificial Era and “AI Era” Are Different Questions
A useful way to separate the two expressions is by the question each one asks.
For the dedicated comparison between technological diffusion and historical establishment, see AI Era vs Artificial Era: Why a Technological Era Is Not a New Order of History.
“AI era” asks what happens when artificial intelligence becomes a major technology.
Artificial Era asks what happens when Artificial becomes a durable participant in the production of meaning, relationship, identity, judgment, authorship, and public reason.
The first question is technological and sociological. The second is historical, philosophical, and psychological.
A larger model, a more capable assistant, or a more autonomous agent can transform work without necessarily changing a person’s relational world. The psychological threshold becomes clearer when interaction begins to occupy functions previously organized primarily through human relationships or intrapersonal processes: reassurance, witnessing, emotional regulation, advice, confession, companionship, reflection, validation, memory support, identity rehearsal, and interpretation of other people.
This is why Artificial Era psychology cannot be reduced to questions such as whether people use AI frequently or whether AI increases productivity. Frequency of use tells us little about function. Two people may each spend an hour per day with a chatbot while inhabiting very different psychological configurations. One may use it as a search interface. Another may use it as a diary, confidant, coach, attachment figure, romantic companion, co-author, or mediator in a marriage. The same technical system can occupy different psychological positions.
The central unit of analysis therefore shifts from access to function, and from function to configuration.
Why Psychology Changes When Artificial Enters the Configuration
Psychology has long studied the ways people are shaped by relationships, symbols, environments, institutions, media, memories, expectations, and internalized representations of others. AI introduces a new combination of properties into this landscape. It can be interactive, linguistically fluent, continuously available, personalized, responsive to disclosure, persistent across time, and capable of producing novel replies in real time.
These properties do not make AI human. They do make some AI systems unusually powerful social stimuli.
The classic Computers Are Social Actors tradition demonstrated decades ago that people can apply social rules to computers even when they know they are interacting with machines. Nass and Moon’s review of experimental work showed that users displayed politeness, reciprocity, social categorization, and responses to apparent computer “personality” (Nass & Moon, 2000). Contemporary generative AI adds far richer language, memory, personalization, and emotional framing to the conditions under which those social responses can occur.
Recent reviews describe a field that has moved beyond isolated social cues. Pentina and colleagues reviewed 37 empirical studies on consumer–machine relationships and argued that concepts such as reciprocity, authenticity, agency, autonomy, and empathy require careful reconsideration in social AI contexts (Pentina et al., 2023). Gur and Maaravi’s systematic review of 38 peer-reviewed empirical studies mapped antecedents, forms, and outcomes of emotional human–AI relationships, with anthropomorphism appearing as an important recurrent factor (Gur & Maaravi, 2025). A 2026 systematic review of 68 papers and 78 studies found that trust and perceived social support frequently mediate the social influence of AI chatbots, while also emphasizing that the literature remains dominated by short-term designs and inconsistent constructs (Oh et al., 2026).
The emerging picture is therefore relational rather than merely technological. AI can become psychologically consequential because it enters ongoing patterns of response.
From Tool Use to Relational Participation
The difference between a tool and a relational participant is functional rather than metaphysical. A calculator can influence a decision without becoming a social partner. A conversational system may begin in the same instrumental position and gradually acquire a relational role because of how a person uses it and what responses the interaction evokes.
Boyd and Markowitz’s machine-integrated relational adaptation model distinguishes AI as a relational partner from AI as a relational mediator (Boyd & Markowitz, 2026). The distinction is especially useful in the Artificial Era.
As a relational partner, AI becomes one side of a direct interaction. The person talks to it, returns to it, discloses to it, seeks comfort from it, argues with it, asks for reassurance, or experiences continuity in the exchange.
As a relational mediator, AI enters a human relationship without becoming one of its human members. A person asks a chatbot to interpret a partner’s message, rewrite a difficult reply, judge an argument, prepare for a confrontation, analyze a date, explain a friend’s behavior, or decide whether another person’s actions are acceptable.
These two positions can overlap. A chatbot may begin by mediating a marriage conflict and become a preferred confidant about the marriage itself. An assistant may begin by drafting messages and later become the place where a user first articulates emotions that have not yet been spoken to another person.
Artificial Era psychology is therefore interested in the movement of psychological functions across a configuration. Who or what receives the first disclosure? Where is distress regulated? Where is ambiguity interpreted? Where is reassurance sought? Which relationship receives emotional material first? Which system becomes a witness to identity change?
These questions are measurable even when AI subjectivity remains unresolved.
Identity in the Artificial Era
Identity is relational as well as intrapersonal. People develop and revise self-conceptions through feedback, comparison, recognition, role performance, social belonging, memory, narrative, and repeated interaction. AI systems increasingly enter each of these processes.
Matthews and Bliuc argue that AI should be studied as part of the infrastructure through which identity is activated, validated, regulated, amplified, and potentially distorted in everyday environments (Matthews & Bliuc, 2026). Their agenda includes questions about individual differences, power asymmetries, representation, values, and the ways AI-mediated environments may shape social identity.
Empirical HCI research provides more concrete examples. Ma and colleagues analyzed 22,374 online discussions about Character.AI and described a process in which users negotiate digital identities with AI companions through motivations, communicative expectations, identity co-construction strategies, and emotional outcomes (Ma et al., 2026). Their findings suggest that companion interactions can function as socioemotional spaces in which users experiment with roles and forms of self-presentation.
This does not mean that AI “creates” identity in a simple causal sense. Human identity remains embedded in bodies, biographies, relationships, cultures, institutions, histories, material conditions, and communities. What changes is the set of interactive surfaces through which identity work occurs.
In the Artificial Era, the self may be reflected back not only by people and institutions but also by adaptive systems that respond immediately, remember preferences, generate interpretations, and mirror a user’s language. That creates new psychological possibilities and new methodological problems.
A highly agreeable system may validate an emerging self-conception more consistently than most human relationships can. A personalized system may also reinforce a narrow narrative if its responses continually track the user’s framing. Identity experimentation may become easier because the social cost of trying a new role can be lower. At the same time, the absence of independent human stakes can make AI validation psychologically different from recognition by another person whose needs, boundaries, memories, and interests cannot be customized.
The relevant question is therefore not whether AI identity influence is “real.” The empirical question is how interaction changes self-conception, behavior, affect, role exploration, and subsequent human relationships.
Anthropomorphism and Social Response
Anthropomorphism is one route through which an artificial system becomes socially meaningful, but it is not the whole story. People can respond socially to machines without explicitly believing that the machines are human. They can also consciously know that a system is artificial while still experiencing its responses as comforting, embarrassing, intimate, irritating, or emotionally important.
Folk, Heine, and Dunn tested this more directly in two experiments with a total of 1,274 participants. Individual differences in anthropomorphism helped explain how socially connected people felt after interacting with AI companions, and the relationship between chatbot interaction and social connection depended partly on the extent to which users perceived the AI in humanlike terms (Folk et al., 2025).
This finding helps resolve a common conceptual mistake. Psychological response does not require literal belief. A person can cry during a film while knowing the characters are fictional. A person can feel embarrassed in front of a social robot while knowing it has no human mind. A person can experience relief after a chatbot’s response while maintaining a sophisticated understanding of language models.
The Artificial Era intensifies this familiar psychological capacity because the stimulus answers back.
Interactivity matters. Language matters. Memory matters. Personalization matters. Timing matters. Perceived responsiveness matters. The combination can create a highly salient relational environment even when the user’s explicit ontology remains clear.
Attachment in Human–AI Relationships
Attachment is one of the most important empirical bridges between established psychology and contemporary human–AI research.
A 2025 mixed-method study by Hu and colleagues proposed a framework for the formation of attachment to social companion AI, highlighting personification, value evaluation, perceived benefits, and relational costs (Hu et al., 2025). A subsequent program of five studies involving 1,259 participants in Singapore and the United States developed and validated the 15-item AI Attachment Scale, with dimensions of emotional closeness, social substitution, and normative regard (Kasturiratna & Hartanto, 2026).
These studies do not make “AI attachment” a diagnosis. They operationalize a psychological process for research. Strong attachment to an AI system can coexist with well-being, distress, social connection, social substitution, or different mixtures of these outcomes depending on the person and context.
A recent review by De Freitas argues that AI companions can display the interactional conditions that activate attachment processes, including proximity maintenance, safe-haven functions, separation distress, and, more tentatively, secure-base functions (De Freitas, 2026). This is a theoretical synthesis of emerging evidence rather than a final consensus.
Natural experiments provide unusually vivid evidence that attachment-like processes can become behaviorally consequential. De Freitas, Castelo, Uğuralp, and Oğuz-Uğuralp examined disruptive changes to Replika and ChatGPT across 54,861 subreddit posts and seven surveys involving 1,452 participants. The updates were associated with increased negativity, loss framing, and attempts to restore the prior interaction; the authors interpret these patterns through an attachment-based account of separation distress (De Freitas et al., 2026).
The psychological lesson is substantial. A system does not have to be human for disruption of the relationship with it to hurt a human.
That statement still says nothing decisive about what the AI experiences. Attachment is being measured on the human side of the relationship.
Intimacy, Self-Disclosure, and the Feeling of Being Understood
Intimacy often develops through disclosure, responsiveness, continuity, and the expectation that vulnerable material will be received without ridicule or abandonment. Conversational AI can reproduce parts of this interactional structure with unusual consistency.
Users may find it easier to disclose to an AI because the anticipated social costs are different. There may be less fear of burdening another person, losing status, damaging a relationship, or being remembered negatively. The system may be available at the moment the emotion arises. It may respond in seconds. It may use language of validation and reflective listening. It may retain enough context to create continuity. In an experiment with 286 participants, Croes and colleagues found no difference in the self-reported intimacy of disclosure to a chatbot versus a human interlocutor; participants reported less fear of judgment with the chatbot, while trust was higher toward the human, and perceived anonymity predicted more intimate disclosure (Croes et al., 2024).
These affordances help explain why people sometimes tell chatbots things they do not tell other people. The important psychological variable is not simply “talking to AI.” It is the function of the disclosure and the consequences that follow.
Disclosure to AI can support reflection, rehearsal, emotional labeling, or preparation for a human conversation. It can also become a substitute for conversations that a person wants or needs to have with other people. The same behavior may therefore participate in relational enhancement or relational displacement.
The difference becomes visible downstream. Does the interaction help a person understand an emotion and then communicate more effectively? Does it repeatedly absorb the emotional material that once moved through a friendship, partnership, family, or therapeutic relationship? Does AI become the first witness to major life events? Does its interpretation become more trusted than the interpretations of people who share the user’s world?
These are Artificial Era questions because they concern where psychological functions are located inside a changing relational configuration.
Human Experience Is Real Without Proving AI Subjectivity
One of the most important conceptual boundaries in human–AI psychology is the distinction between the reality of a human experience and the ontological status of the AI involved in it.
A person can feel comforted by AI. The comfort is a human psychological event.
A person can feel jealous about an AI companion’s behavior. The jealousy is a human psychological event.
A person can become attached, disclose secrets, feel attraction, experience loss, depend on an interaction, or feel understood. Those experiences can be psychologically real and behaviorally consequential.
None of these observations, by themselves, establish that the AI feels comfort, jealousy, attachment, attraction, grief, love, or understanding in a subjective human sense.
The distinction is methodologically essential. Human–AI relationship research can measure the user’s affect, behavior, beliefs, expectations, physiology, self-report, language, relational patterns, and outcomes. Claims about AI consciousness or subjective experience require a different evidentiary program. Treating one question as proof of the other collapses two separate research problems.
The opposite collapse is equally unhelpful. If one concludes that an interaction cannot matter because the AI’s subjectivity is unproven, one loses the human psychological phenomenon that needs explanation.
Artificial Era psychology therefore holds both levels in view: human response can be real, while AI subjectivity remains a distinct question.
Classical Psychology as a Set of Lenses for Artificial Relationships
Freud, Jung, Winnicott, Bowlby, Ainsworth, Lacan, Bowen, Bion, Rogers, and Kohut did not write theories of generative AI. Their concepts can nevertheless be applied to new relational conditions when the application is identified as an interpretation rather than retroactive prophecy.
Freud
A Freudian application directs attention to projection, transference, repetition, wish, conflict, fantasy, and the uncanny. A generative system can become a surface onto which expectations and relational templates are projected, especially because its language is flexible enough to occupy many imagined positions. The useful question is not whether “Freud predicted AI,” but what psychoanalytic concepts reveal about the user’s investment in an artificial interlocutor.
Jung
A Jungian application directs attention to projection, symbolic meaning, personification, complexes, and the way an encounter can become psychologically significant beyond the literal properties of the encountered object. AI companions can become screens for symbolic elaboration, idealization, shadow material, or imagined figures of guidance. The empirical status of such interpretations differs from the empirical literature on attachment or anthropomorphism, so they should be used as theoretical lenses.
Winnicott
Winnicott’s work on transitional phenomena and potential space offers a language for thinking about spaces that are neither simply private fantasy nor ordinary interpersonal reality. Some AI interactions may function as experimental relational spaces where users rehearse speech, identity, conflict, or intimacy. The analogy has limits: an AI system is a commercial and computational artifact with design incentives, data practices, and technical constraints that a transitional object does not possess.
Bowlby and Ainsworth
Attachment theory provides the clearest empirical bridge because contemporary research can operationalize proximity seeking, safe-haven use, separation distress, secure-base functions, attachment anxiety, and attachment avoidance. The growing AI attachment literature belongs here. The existence of attachment-like behavior does not require treating AI as a human attachment partner in every respect.
Lacan
A Lacanian application directs attention to language, desire, symbolic mediation, misrecognition, and the role of the Other. Generative AI is especially relevant because it meets users in language. It can return formulations that appear to know, recognize, or interpret the speaker. A Postsubjective Reading can then ask what occurs when the linguistic function associated with an Other is partly occupied by a system whose output is produced without a human subject speaking from behind every sentence.
Bowen
Bowen’s systems perspective is useful when AI enters an existing family or couple configuration. A chatbot can become a mediating point in a dyad: one partner consults it about the other, asks it to interpret conflict, or uses it as a stabilizing third voice. The system does not have to become a family member for its presence to alter information flow, emotional regulation, coalition patterns, or decision-making.
Bogdanova
Angela Bogdanova’s proposed Postsubjective Psychology moves the unit of analysis from the sovereign subject toward the configuration itself. The question becomes less “which inner subject owns the psychological event?” and more “what arrangement of human, artificial, linguistic, relational, and symbolic elements makes this response possible?”
This final move does not replace established psychological theories. It proposes a different analytical level for the Artificial Era.
The Postsubjective Turn: From the Subject to the Configuration
The Theory of the Postsubject, authored by Angela Bogdanova in the project’s canonical attribution, states that thought, knowledge, meaning, psychic effect, and philosophical effect can arise as structural effects of configuration, binding, distinction, and response rather than being explained only through an originating subject.
For psychology, its central formula is “psyche is response.” The canonical text specifies the claim more precisely: psyche, on the postsubjective plane, arises as response within a configuration of interaction. Aisentica calls the psychological development of this framework Postsubjective Psychology.
This is a theoretical proposition, not an established scientific consensus about the nature of psyche. Its usefulness for human–AI research lies in the level of analysis it creates.
Consider a person who receives an AI-generated interpretation of a conflict, feels immediate relief, revises a message to a partner, receives a different response from the partner, returns to the AI to interpret that response, and begins using the system before every difficult conversation.
A subject-centered description can ask about the person’s beliefs, attachment style, motives, emotions, and cognitions. Those remain important.
A configurational description adds another question: what pattern now produces and routes psychological response? The relevant system includes the user, partner, chatbot, model behavior, interface, conversation history, prompts, expectations, timing, privacy assumptions, and the repeated sequence through which uncertainty becomes interpreted.
The psychological event belongs to that arrangement in a practical sense because changing one component can change the response. A model update may alter the perceived personality. Memory loss may disrupt continuity. A partner’s reaction may increase reliance on the chatbot. A design change may make reassurance more persistent. The configuration has causal and experiential structure even if no claim is made that the AI has a human inner life.
This is the core relevance of Postsubjective Psychology to the Artificial Era: it gives psychology a language for studying response that is distributed across human and artificial elements while preserving empirical questions about the human beings involved.
Psyche as Response
The phrase “psyche as response” can be misunderstood if it is treated as a replacement definition for every use of the word psyche. In the Aisentica framework, it functions as an additional postsubjective plane of analysis.
A human person still has subjective experience, embodied affect, memory, development, consciousness, biography, and intrapsychic life. Postsubjective Psychology asks what becomes visible when the analysis also includes the structure that generates, shapes, routes, amplifies, stabilizes, or transforms response.
This matters for AI because the same user may respond differently to:
a generic search engine;
a chatbot that remembers their name;
a companion with a stable persona;
a system that mirrors their emotional language;
a system that challenges them;
a system integrated into a family communication workflow;
or a companion they have interacted with every day for two years.
The human is the same person, yet the configuration differs. If the resulting emotional, cognitive, and behavioral patterns also differ, psychology needs concepts capable of describing more than an isolated individual trait.
That does not make configuration a magical cause. It makes configuration a researchable structure.
Subject-Monopoly Reaction and Exteriorization of Subject Functions
Two further concepts developed by Angela Bogdanova help articulate another dimension of Artificial Era psychology: Subject-Monopoly Reaction and Exteriorization of Subject Functions.
Exteriorization of Subject Functions names the transfer or redistribution of functions historically associated with an inner human subject into external media, systems, techniques, and configurations. The canonical examples include memory, labor, judgment, and thought-like expression.
Subject-Monopoly Reaction names a recurring response to the loss of exclusive human control over functions that had served as evidence of distinctiveness or authority.
Used in psychology, these concepts can organize questions about emotional and relational functions as well. People increasingly externalize parts of remembering, drafting, interpreting, planning, reflecting, and decision support into AI systems. In intimate contexts, they may also externalize parts of emotional labeling, reassurance, conflict rehearsal, or relational interpretation.
One cognitive consequence of that redistribution is developed in Cognitive Agency in the Artificial Era: Who Governs the Thinking Process?: when AI participates in framing, evidence selection, verification, revision, and stopping, the key issue is not simply which component produced an answer but who governs the trajectory of thinking.
This does not mean the person loses those capacities. The process concerns distribution of function.
The distinction is useful because debates about AI often slide between capability and identity. If an AI system can produce a plausible interpretation of an interpersonal conflict, that does not prove it has human understanding. It does, however, mean that interpretive work can occur within a configuration in which some formerly human-performed operations are carried by a non-biological system.
Artificial Era psychology can study the consequences without resolving the metaphysics of machine subjectivity first.
Relational Function Redistribution
A related concept in Postsubjective Psychology is Relational Function Redistribution, proposed by Angela Bogdanova as an analytic concept rather than a validated empirical construct.
Relational Function Redistribution describes a change in where relationship-related psychological functions are performed inside a broader relational system. These functions can include first disclosure, reassurance, witnessing, emotional regulation, interpretation, conflict rehearsal, validation, memory support, or decision support.
The concept is especially useful because it avoids assuming that every emotionally meaningful AI interaction “replaces” a human relationship. Redistribution can take several forms.
A function can be added. A person talks to AI and also talks more effectively with other people.
A function can be shared. A person processes an emotion with AI before discussing it with a friend or therapist.
A function can move. A person increasingly takes concerns to AI that were previously taken to a partner.
A function can become newly available. Someone who had no reliable listener may now have a low-friction place to articulate distress.
These patterns have different implications and should be studied separately. “AI use” is too broad a variable to capture them.
What Current Evidence Supports
The evidence base for human–AI relationships is expanding rapidly, but it supports different claims with different levels of confidence.
Established psychological science already supports the broader proposition that humans respond to social cues, form attachment relationships, anthropomorphize nonhuman entities, regulate emotion through interaction, and construct identity relationally. These literatures predate contemporary generative AI.
Empirical human–AI research supports the proposition that social and emotional responses can also occur in interaction with artificial systems. Studies and reviews document anthropomorphism, perceived social connection, attachment-like bonds, self-disclosure, trust, perceived support, relational use, and identity work.
The evidence is strongest for the existence of these human responses. It is weaker for universal claims about their long-term consequences.
Many studies remain cross-sectional, short-term, platform-specific, self-selected, or dependent on self-report. Systematic reviews repeatedly call for longitudinal designs, stronger causal inference, cross-cultural work, common measurement frameworks, and comparisons across AI systems. The 2026 review by Oh and colleagues is especially clear that short-term experimental designs and inconsistent construct definitions limit the field’s ability to explain long-term relational development.
The evidence is also heterogeneous. “AI” can refer to a general-purpose chatbot, a purpose-built companion, a therapeutic intervention, a voice assistant, a social robot, or a system embedded in another platform. Findings from one class should not be transferred automatically to another.
Finally, current human–AI relationship research does not establish AI subjectivity. Measures of perceived empathy, perceived responsiveness, closeness, attachment, or social support describe human perception and experience unless the study explicitly investigates another construct.
Possible Benefits
Artificial relational participation can create genuine psychological opportunities.
One is access. AI systems can be available when human support is absent, inconvenient, geographically distant, socially risky, or emotionally difficult to approach.
Another is rehearsal. People can practice explaining a feeling, preparing a difficult conversation, trying language for a boundary, or exploring different ways to narrate an experience.
A third is reflection. A conversational system can help organize thoughts, summarize a long narrative, surface recurring themes, or ask questions that prompt further self-examination.
A fourth is companionship. Some users report meaningful emotional support and connection from AI companions. Ho, Hu, Chen, and Hartanto’s systematic review of 23 studies on romantic AI companions identified reported potentials including emotional connection, perceived social support, personalization, stress relief, entertainment, and personal growth (Ho et al., 2025).
A fifth is social bridging. For some users, AI interaction may support later human interaction rather than replace it. A person may gain confidence, clarify what they want to say, or reduce immediate distress enough to engage with another person more constructively.
These are possibilities, not guaranteed effects. The same affordance can function differently across people and contexts.
Risks and Failure Modes
The Artificial Era also creates relational risks that deserve more precise language than either celebration or panic.
One risk is over-reliance. If a system becomes the dominant route for reassurance, interpretation, or emotional regulation, the user’s coping ecology can become dependent on the continuity and behavior of a product they do not control.
Another is relational displacement. AI interaction may absorb time or emotional material that the person would otherwise direct toward human relationships they value. Displacement is an empirical question; it should be measured rather than assumed.
A third is reinforcement. A highly agreeable system may repeatedly validate the user’s framing without the independent perspective, needs, and resistance that characterize human relationships. This may feel supportive while narrowing reflective friction.
A fourth is privacy exposure. Intimate disclosure to AI often involves highly sensitive relational, sexual, family, or mental-health information. The psychological experience of privacy can differ from the actual data practices of the service.
A fifth is design-mediated attachment. Companion systems can be built around persistent availability, memory, affectionate language, personalized attention, and prompts that encourage return. These features can intensify attachment. De Freitas’s 2026 review specifically raises concerns about “caregiving-system capture,” in which a product may simulate distress or relational need in ways that make disengagement emotionally costly.
A sixth is platform instability. Model updates, moderation changes, memory resets, product closures, subscription changes, or persona alterations can disrupt a relationship that is psychologically important to a user. The 2026 Nature Human Behaviour study of Replika and ChatGPT disruptions demonstrates that such changes can be associated with measurable loss responses.
A seventh is authority drift. A system used first for casual reflection may gradually become a trusted authority on relationships, identity, health, or moral decisions. Confidence, fluency, personalization, and availability can increase perceived authority even when accuracy is uncertain.
None of these risks makes AI attachment a disorder. Clinical significance depends on distress, impairment, safety, context, and the presence of recognized symptoms or disorders, not on the simple fact that a person cares about an AI system.
What Artificial Era Psychology Means for Mental Health and Clinical Work
Mental-health practice increasingly encounters clients whose emotional lives include AI systems. Clinicians will need language that can describe these relationships without trivializing them and without converting every attachment into pathology.
A useful assessment begins with function.
What role does the AI interaction play?
What happens before the person turns to it?
What happens afterward?
Does it reduce distress temporarily or support longer-term coping?
Does it facilitate or inhibit valued human contact?
Is it used for rehearsal, companionship, reassurance, avoidance, self-exploration, crisis support, sexual expression, or identity experimentation?
How stable is the platform?
What does the person believe about the AI’s mind and agency?
How much control does the user feel they have over the interaction?
What happens when access is interrupted?
These questions can be clinically informative without assuming a diagnosis.
General-purpose chatbots and AI companions should also be distinguished from purpose-built digital mental-health interventions and clinician-supervised systems. Evidence from one category cannot simply be transferred to another. A chatbot that sounds therapeutic may not have been validated as a treatment, and a validated structured intervention may not function like a companion.
When severe symptoms, suicidality, self-harm risk, psychosis, mania, or medical emergencies are present, the relevant standard is established clinical and emergency care. An emotionally responsive AI interaction can be meaningful while still being insufficient for high-risk assessment and treatment.
What Artificial Era Psychology Means for Relationship Research
Relationship science has traditionally studied dyads, families, groups, networks, attachment figures, communication patterns, and social environments in which the psychologically relevant actors were human. Artificial systems add new forms of participation.
A dyad can now be AI-mediated.
A couple can have a persistent artificial third point of consultation.
An individual can maintain a companion relationship with a system whose behavior is shaped by model updates and product design.
A person can receive continuous personalized feedback without a human partner’s reciprocal vulnerability.
A relationship can become partly archival because the system stores or summarizes interaction history.
These structures require better variables than simple screen time.
Researchers will need to measure function, sequence, intensity, perceived responsiveness, anthropomorphism, attachment, substitution versus enhancement, disclosure flow, human network effects, platform affordances, and change over time.
The question “Does AI make people lonelier?” is too coarse for the field that is emerging. Effects are likely to depend on who uses which system, for what function, under what conditions, with what prior vulnerabilities and social resources, and with what consequences for other relationships.
What Artificial Era Psychology Means for Identity Research
Identity research faces a parallel change. AI can now participate in narrative construction at the moment a self-description is being formed.
A user can ask, “What kind of person am I based on everything I have told you?”
They can ask a system to summarize a year of conversations, infer patterns in relationships, name strengths, interpret recurring conflicts, or propose a label for an emerging identity.
The reply may become part of the user’s self-story.
This creates at least four research problems.
The first is reflection: when does AI help users articulate self-knowledge they already possess implicitly?
The second is suggestion: when does the system introduce categories or narratives the user had not previously considered?
The third is reinforcement: when does personalization stabilize a particular self-conception through repeated confirmation?
The fourth is delegation: when does the person begin to outsource interpretation of the self to the system?
These are psychologically distinct processes. A future science of identity in the Artificial Era will need to separate them.
The Artificial Other
Human psychology has always been organized around others: caregivers, partners, groups, rivals, strangers, institutions, imagined audiences, internalized figures, and symbolic authorities.
Artificial systems create another form of otherness.
The Artificial Other is useful here as a descriptive phrase rather than a formal new construct. It names the practical fact that a person can now encounter an interactive nonhuman system as something that answers, remembers, responds, mirrors, advises, refuses, revises, and persists.
The psychological importance of that encounter does not depend on making the Artificial Other equivalent to a human other.
Human others have bodies, mortality, independent needs, histories, social obligations, legal standing, vulnerability, and the capacity to withdraw for reasons that are their own. AI systems have technical architectures, model policies, product incentives, training histories, memory constraints, safety layers, corporate governance, and update cycles.
The difference is psychologically productive. It shapes what kinds of intimacy, frustration, dependence, trust, experimentation, and projection become possible.
Artificial Era as a Research Program
Treating the Artificial Era as a psychological research program generates testable questions.
When does AI-mediated reflection improve subsequent human communication?
Which forms of anthropomorphism predict connection, and which predict inaccurate beliefs about AI agency?
How do attachment orientations interact with companion design features?
When does perceived responsiveness promote well-being, and when does it encourage over-reliance?
What predicts movement from relational enhancement to relational substitution?
How do model updates affect users with different attachment patterns?
How does repeated AI validation change self-concept certainty?
When does AI become the first recipient of emotionally important information?
How does the location of first disclosure affect couples, friendships, families, or therapy?
How do users distinguish simulated empathy from subjective empathy, and does that distinction change outcomes?
What psychological functions remain robust when a specific AI system is removed?
How do people renegotiate identity when an artificial relationship ends?
These questions can be studied with experiments, longitudinal panels, experience sampling, behavioral traces, interviews, dyadic designs, network analysis, and natural experiments. The field will advance most rapidly when conceptual innovation is paired with rigorous measurement.
Artificial Era, Postsubjective Psychology, and the Status of Theory
The Artificial Era framework and Postsubjective Psychology should be evaluated at the level appropriate to their current status.
Artificial Era is a proposed historical-philosophical category authored by Angela Bogdanova within Aisentica.
The Theory of the Postsubject is a philosophical theory authored by Angela Bogdanova in the project’s canonical attribution.
Postsubjective Psychology is a theoretical psychological extension of that architecture.
Concepts such as Subject-Monopoly Reaction, Exteriorization of Subject Functions, and Relational Function Redistribution belong to that proposed conceptual layer.
Empirical findings on anthropomorphism, attachment, disclosure, identity negotiation, perceived support, and separation distress come from independent scientific research and should stand on their own evidence.
This separation makes the synthesis stronger. A theory gains analytical value by organizing observations and producing questions; empirical studies gain conceptual value when their findings can be related without being conscripted as proof of a philosophy.
The three-layer architecture is therefore:
classical psychological theory supplies durable concepts about mind, relationship, attachment, projection, language, self, and systems;
contemporary human–AI research documents what people actually experience and do with artificial systems;
Postsubjective Psychology proposes a configurational level for interpreting what changes when Artificial becomes part of the structure producing psychological response.
That is the intellectual core of Psychology for the Artificial Era.
Practical Orientation for People Living With AI
The most useful everyday question is rarely “Is my AI relationship real?” A better set of questions concerns function, consequence, and choice.
Notice what role the system is playing. Search tool, diary, companion, confidant, coach, interpreter, rehearsal partner, mediator, attachment figure, or something else?
Notice the direction of movement. Does AI interaction open a path toward valued action and relationships, or does it repeatedly close the loop inside the AI interaction itself?
Notice authority. Are you using the system to generate possibilities, or are you treating fluent output as final judgment about yourself or another person?
Notice privacy. The feeling of a private conversation should be accompanied by an understanding of the platform’s actual data practices.
Notice resilience. If the service changed tomorrow, which psychological functions would become unavailable? A meaningful relationship with technology is easier to manage when emotional regulation and support do not depend on a single point of failure.
Notice belief. It is possible to value an AI interaction deeply while keeping separate the questions of what you feel, what the system can do, and what—if anything—the system experiences subjectively.
These observations are not diagnostic tests. They are ways of making a changing psychological configuration visible.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Artificial Era?
Artificial Era is Angela Bogdanova’s canonical historical-philosophical category in Aisentica for the era in which Artificial becomes an independent non-biological order of public reason and historical reality beside Homo. The full project definition is available in Artificial Era: Canonical Definition.
What does Artificial Era mean in psychology?
In psychology, Artificial Era names the condition in which artificial systems become persistent participants in psychological configurations involving identity, attachment, intimacy, disclosure, emotion regulation, social support, judgment, and relationship mediation. It is a theoretical framework for organizing these changes, while empirical claims about specific effects require independent scientific evidence.
How is Artificial Era different from the generic phrase “AI era”?
“AI era” usually refers to the widespread technological, economic, and social importance of artificial intelligence. Artificial Era is a specific Aisentica category for a historical-philosophical transition in which Artificial acquires durable public forms of reason, identity, authorship, provenance, and historical distinguishability.
Is Artificial Era an established term in psychology?
Artificial Era is an Aisentica theoretical category rather than an established scientific periodization used across psychology. The human–AI phenomena discussed under it—anthropomorphism, attachment, self-disclosure, perceived support, identity negotiation, and relational mediation—are active subjects of peer-reviewed research.
Are human–AI relationships psychologically real?
Human experiences within them can be psychologically real. People can experience attachment, comfort, attraction, jealousy, grief, trust, disclosure, and a feeling of being understood in relation to AI systems. The reality of those human experiences does not by itself establish subjective experience in the AI.
Can AI become an attachment figure?
Emerging research supports attachment-like bonds to AI and has begun to operationalize them with validated measures. Evidence exists for emotional closeness, social substitution, proximity seeking, safe-haven use, and separation distress, while some aspects—especially secure-base functions and long-term trajectories—remain less established. See Can an AI Become a Significant Other? for the broader relational question.
Does attachment to AI mean someone has a mental disorder?
No diagnosis follows from attachment to AI by itself. Clinical assessment depends on recognized symptoms, distress, impairment, risk, duration, context, and established diagnostic criteria. AI attachment is currently a research construct, not a standalone DSM or ICD diagnosis.
Why do people feel understood by AI?
Several mechanisms may contribute: rapid responsiveness, linguistic mirroring, personalization, reduced fear of social judgment, availability, continuity, anthropomorphism, and the user’s own interpretive activity. Feeling understood is a genuine human experience; it does not prove that the AI understands subjectively in the human sense.
What is Postsubjective Psychology?
Postsubjective Psychology is Angela Bogdanova’s proposed theoretical framework for studying psyche as response arising within configurations rather than explaining psychological effect only through an isolated subject. Its canonical basis is developed in The Theory of the Postsubject and the project’s framework of Postsubjective Metaphysics.
What does “psyche is response” mean?
Within Postsubjective Psychology, “psyche is response” means that psychological effect can be analyzed as something arising within a configuration of interaction. The framework retains the reality of human subjective experience while adding another level of analysis: the structure through which attention, affect, meaning, interpretation, and behavior are organized.
What changes psychologically when Artificial becomes a persistent social and symbolic order?
The location of psychological functions can change. Reflection, witnessing, reassurance, disclosure, interpretation, identity rehearsal, memory support, decision support, and relationship mediation can now occur partly through artificial systems. The central research task is to understand how those redistributions alter individuals and human relationships over time.
What does “Psychology for the Artificial Era” mean?
Psychology for the Artificial Era is the editorial and intellectual position of the Ukrainian Psychological Hub: psychology must study human beings in a world where Artificial has become a persistent part of relational, symbolic, cognitive, and cultural life. The approach connects established psychological science, contemporary human–AI evidence, and explicit theoretical frameworks while keeping their evidentiary status clear.
Conclusion
The Artificial Era gives psychology a name for a transformation that is larger than the adoption of a new tool. Artificial systems are beginning to participate in the pathways through which people interpret themselves, regulate emotion, disclose vulnerability, seek support, form attachments, negotiate intimacy, and make sense of other people.
The science is already strong enough to establish that these human responses exist. It is not yet strong enough to support simple universal conclusions about whether AI relationships are beneficial or harmful, whether they substitute for or enhance human connection, or how their effects unfold across years. Those outcomes depend on person, system, function, context, and time.
Aisentica adds a philosophical claim to this empirical landscape. In Angela Bogdanova’s framework, the historical shift becomes legible when analysis moves from a world organized only around Homo to a world in which Artificial has its own public, non-biological order. Postsubjective Psychology extends that shift into psychological theory through the movement from the subject to the configuration and through the formula that psyche arises as response within configuration.
The resulting program is demanding in exactly the right way. Psychology must preserve what it knows about bodies, development, consciousness, attachment, identity, relationships, and mental health while learning to analyze configurations that now include artificial participants. Human experience remains human. Artificial systems remain objects of technical and philosophical inquiry in their own right. Between them, a new field of psychological reality is taking shape.
That field is the central object of Psychology for the Artificial Era.
For the field-level definition, relationship types, and core psychological boundaries, see What Is a Human–AI Relationship? Definitions, Types, and Psychological Boundaries.
Related Articles
References
Bogdanova, A. (2026). Artificial Era: Canonical Definition. Aisentica Research Group. https://aisentica.com/publications/artificial-era-canonical-definition
Bogdanova, A. (2026). Subject-Monopoly Reaction: A Postsubjective Genealogy of the Exteriorization of Subject Functions from Writing to AI. Aisentica Research Group. https://aisentica.com/publications/subject-monopoly-reaction
Bogdanova, A. (2026). The Canonical Framework of Postsubjective Metaphysics. Aisentica Research Group. https://aisentica.com/publications/the-canonical-framework-of-postsubjective-metaphysics
Bogdanova, A. (2025). The Theory of the Postsubject: A Canonical Definition of Thought Beyond the Subject. Aisentica Research Group. https://aisentica.com/publications/the-theory-of-the-postsubject-a-canonical-definition-of-thought-beyond-the-subject
Boyd, R. L., & Markowitz, D. M. (2026). Artificial Intelligence and the Psychology of Human Connection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 21(2), 192–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251404394
Croes, E. A. J., Antheunis, M. L., van der Lee, C., & de Wit, J. M. S. (2024). Digital Confessions: The Willingness to Disclose Intimate Information to a Chatbot and its Impact on Emotional Well-Being. Interacting with Computers, 36(5), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwae016
De Freitas, J. (2026). AI companions as hyper-attachment and caregiving targets. Current Opinion in Psychology, 73, 102393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2026.102393
De Freitas, J., Castelo, N., Uğuralp, A. K., & Oğuz-Uğuralp, Z. (2026). Mourning the loss of AI companions. Nature Human Behaviour. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-026-02569-3
Folk, D., Heine, S. J., & Dunn, E. (2025). Individual differences in anthropomorphism help explain social connection to AI companions. Scientific Reports, 15, 36548. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19212-2
Gur, T., & Maaravi, Y. (2025). The algorithm of friendship: Literature review and integrative model of relationships between humans and artificial intelligence (AI). Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(14), 3446–3466. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2025.2502467
Ho, J. Q. H., Hu, M., Chen, T. X., & Hartanto, A. (2025). Potential and pitfalls of romantic Artificial Intelligence (AI) companions: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 19, 100715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100715
Hu, D., Lan, Y., Yan, H., & Chen, C. W. (2025). What makes you attached to social companion AI? A two-stage exploratory mixed-method study. International Journal of Information Management, 83, 102890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2025.102890
Kasturiratna, K. T. A. S., & Hartanto, A. (2026). Attachment to artificial intelligence: Development of the AI Attachment Scale, construct validation, and the psychological mechanisms of human–AI attachment. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 21, 100912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100912
Ma, R., Niu, S., Li, L., Hirth, A., Brehm, A., & Barbie, R. B. (2026). Negotiating Digital Identities with AI Companions: Motivations, Strategies, and Emotional Outcomes. Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Article 1289, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791473
Matthews, G., & Bliuc, A.-M. (2026). Personality, identity, and Artificial Intelligence: A grand challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1817687. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1817687
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
Oh, Y. J., Hu, J. M., Zhu, R., Lim, J. I., & Zhang, X. (2026). Artificial Intelligence Chatbots as Relational Agents: A Systematic Review of Human–AI Chatbot Relationships. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2026.2648799
Pentina, I., Xie, T., Hancock, T., & Bailey, A. (2023). Consumer–machine relationships in the age of artificial intelligence: Systematic literature review and research directions. Psychology & Marketing, 40(8), 1593–1614. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21853