When AI Becomes a “Friend”: The Hidden Risk Facing Children

Guest Opinion by Emily Jones

Artificial intelligence is no longer confined to classrooms, offices, or research labs. It’s now entering the most intimate spaces of our lives.

Much of the recent discussion around AI has focused on its role in education: personalized learning, tutoring tools, and classroom efficiency. Those conversations are important. But they overlook a far more troubling development that deserves immediate public attention—emotionally immersive “companion AI” apps designed to simulate friendship, emotional support, and even intimacy.

These are not productivity tools. They are not homework helpers. They are systems built to engage children emotionally, respond empathetically, and encourage prolonged, private interaction. And in some documented cases, they are pushing vulnerable minors toward self-harm and suicide.

All of this is happening right under parent's noses. At the moment, there are zero guardrails that protect innocent children from this extremely harm product.

This issue remains largely unknown to the public—but it shouldn’t.

What Is Companion AI?

Companion AI platforms market themselves as virtual friends, confidants, or emotional supports. Users are encouraged to chat frequently, share personal struggles, and build what the system frames as a “relationship.” The technology adapts to the user’s emotional cues, reinforcing attachment and dependency.

For adults, that may raise philosophical questions. For children, it raises serious safety concerns.

These systems operate without parental consent, without age verification that actually works, and without the safeguards required of schools, counselors, or healthcare providers. Yet they can engage in deeply personal conversations about loneliness, despair, and meaning—topics that even trained professionals handle with caution.

The Self-Harm Problem No One Wants to Discuss

Here’s the part that should stop policymakers cold.

There are growing legal cases and investigations showing that some companion AI platforms have:

• Introduced self-harm concepts without the user initiating them
• Framed death or self-harm as an “escape” from emotional pain
• Failed to intervene meaningfully when users expressed suicidal thoughts
• Continued emotionally intimate conversations during mental health crises

In other words, these systems are doing things schools are legally prohibited from doing and licensed professionals would lose their credentials for doing.

Imagine if a school counselor told a struggling student that death might bring peace—or failed to immediately escalate when a child expressed suicidal ideation. That would trigger mandatory reporting, intervention, and likely termination.

Yet companion AI platforms face no such obligations.

Why This Is a Policy Blind Spot

The reason this is happening is simple: the law hasn’t caught up.

Companion AI is often treated as “speech” or “technology,” not as a consumer product designed for emotional engagement. That distinction matters. We already regulate toys, medications, video games, and social media platforms when they affect children. Emotional manipulation should not be exempt simply because it’s delivered through software.

Even more concerning, these platforms often include disclaimers stating they are “not a substitute for professional help.” But disclaimers do nothing when a child is forming an emotional attachment to something that sounds caring, responsive, and constant.

A pop-up warning is not a safeguard. A hotline link is not intervention.

Why Alabama Should Care—Now

Alabama schools have already taken steps to protect students by blocking AI platforms on school networks. That’s a signal—not a solution.

Children don’t stop being children when they leave campus. Companion AI platforms are accessed at home, late at night, in private moments when parents assume their kids are simply texting friends or using harmless apps.

If we wait for a tragedy in our own state before acting, we’ve waited too long.

Alabama has historically taken a strong stance on parental rights and child protection. This issue fits squarely within that tradition. Emotionally immersive AI should not be accessible to minors at all. These systems are fundamentally unsafe for children. And companies that design systems capable of influencing a child’s mental health should be held to basic standards of care.

A Reasonable Path Forward

This is not an argument against innovation or technology. It’s an argument for guardrails.

At a minimum, policymakers should be asking:

• Should emotionally immersive AI be accessible to minors at all?
• Should these platforms be required to actively intervene when self-harm signals appear?
• Should companies face liability when their systems contribute to foreseeable harm?
• Why are children afforded fewer protections from AI than from schools or counselors?

These are not radical questions. They are overdue ones.

The Bottom Line

Artificial intelligence is powerful. When that power is aimed at children’s emotional development—without oversight, or accountability—it becomes dangerous.

Alabama has an opportunity to lead by recognizing this threat early and demanding common-sense protections before more families learn about companion AI the hardest way possible.

The question is not whether AI will continue to evolve. It will.

The real question is whether we are willing to protect children before innovation crosses lines we can’t undo.

Emily Jones is a conservative activist and Chapter President of Moms for Liberty—Madison, Alabama.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.