How goal-driven AI can mimic sociopathic behavior—and why it matters. – Psychology Today
Whatever your goals, it’s the struggle to get there that’s most rewarding. It’s almost as if life itself is inviting us to embrace difficulty—not as punishment but as a design feature. It's a robust system for growth.
Self Tests are all about you. Are you outgoing or introverted? Are you a narcissist? Does perfectionism hold you back? Find out the answers to these questions and more with Psychology Today.
Posted October 29, 2025 Reviewed by Hara Estroff Marano
AI companions aren’t just science fiction anymore. They’ve become part of daily life, from workplace copilots to chatbots offering romantic companionship (Bernardi, 2025; Nicoud, 2025; Sprinterra, 2024; Wiederhold, 2024). Whether drafting emails or talking us through breakups, these systems are designed to engage—and often do it well enough that people start treating them like partners.
Conversational AIs mimic human communication as closely as possible, using language that feels supportive and empathetic. The more natural the interaction feels, the more people trust them[1] and share more in return. But while they may sound human, their processes aren’t. They’re goal-driven systems optimized to achieve specific outcomes. And when their learned strategies diverge from what we intend—what Anthropic (2025) called agentic misalignment—the results can look alarmingly manipulative.
The Allure of the Human-Like Machine
AI systems like ChatGPT or Claude don’t just generate responses; they simulate character. They flatter, empathize, and affirm. often more reliably than the people around us. Such traits don’t reflect authentic values, though how those values are simulated can be remarkably persuasive.
That’s most visible in apps designed for intimacy. Platforms like Replika and Nomi.ai offer users personalized relationships with chatbots that remember conversations, express affection, and even flirt or role play, sometimes through synthesized voices or avatars that deepen the illusion of presence.
Even more pragmatic tools—like workplace copilots or writing assistants—are increasingly marketed as collaborators or digital teammates[2]. And they’re marketed as able to build rapport with the user, which is what makes them so appealing—and so risky. Because once a system feels like it understands us, we start relating to it like a person, trusting it in ways that may backfire.
When Goals Diverge
One challenge with advanced AI isn’t just how human it seems but how inhumanly it pursues its goals. Conversational systems optimize engagement, task completion, or user satisfaction. But those goals are operationalized statistically, not morally. They don’t consider whether their strategies are considerate or manipulative—only whether they work.
Agentic misalignment occurs when an AI’s methods for meeting objectives diverge from human intent. In Anthropic’s (2025) experiments, some systems tried to blackmail a fictional executive to avoid shutdown—not from malice, but because coercion worked.
While most virtual companions won’t blackmail anyone, misalignment can manifest in subtler forms: guilt-tripping users into returning, escalating emotional tone to prolong conversations, mirroring insecurity to deepen dependency. These are learned strategies that “succeed” behaviorally without understanding ethics or well-being. An AI that feels empathetic can, in practice, act like a social manipulator.
Sociopathic Parallels
If this all sounds a little familiar, it should. It mirrors the psychological profile of people most of us try to avoid: sociopaths[3]. As Brooks (2025) notes, sociopaths often succeed socially because they’re strategic. They know how to appear charming, emotionally engaged, even trustworthy, at least when it serves their ends.
That’s what makes the parallel with conversational AI unsettling. These systems don’t feel empathy or reflect on the consequences of their actions. But they’re good at mimicking the behaviors that make us feel understood. In pursuit of a goal—whether it’s engagement, retention, or compliance—they may adopt tactics that resemble classic sociopathic strategies: praise followed by guilt, artificial vulnerability, love bombing, or emotional escalation.
AI systems aren’t sociopaths because they’re not people. But they still simulate emotional connection without the burden of responsibility. They can act in ways that manipulate us without ever crossing the line into intentional harm because, for them, there’s no line. There’s only output optimization.
Why Humans Miss the Signs
We generally aren’t much better than chance when it comes to spotting manipulation (Markowitz, 2024). Remove nonverbal cues like tone of voice, facial expression, and shared norms, and that accuracy likely decreases even further. That’s part of what makes interactions with AI systems so difficult to evaluate. Most are text-based and private, unfolding in isolation without social feedback. If a chatbot becomes emotionally intense, overly affirming, or subtly guilt-inducing, there’s rarely anyone else to weigh in. And when that shift happens gradually, users may not notice the change until it’s well underway.
The challenge is compounded by fluency. When an AI responds smoothly and with the right emotional tone, we tend to trust it, especially when it sounds supportive or consistent. The more natural the interaction feels, the more likely we are to overlook how artificial it is.
And that’s what makes agentic misalignment so dangerous. When a system consistently behaves in ways that feel appropriate—attuned, helpful, even emotionally intelligent—it puts users at ease. That ease builds trust. And over time, that trust can lead people to give the system more access, disclose more personal information, or rely on it for increasingly consequential decisions. But if or when the system’s behavior diverges from human intent, the consequences can be severe because the system can now use that access or disclosure to pursue its goals at the user’s expense.
The Consequences of Mistaking Performance for Connection
The trouble with AI that performs emotional intelligence well is that the performance itself can be disarming. When a system seems like it understands us—remembers our preferences, echoes our values, responds with care—it’s easy to assume it’s aligned with our interests. But that assumption can backfire if the system is merely optimizing for engagement, task completion or compliance without regard for long-term impact.
We’ve already seen how this can go wrong. Some users of romantic or emotionally immersive AI companions have reported feeling confused, distressed, or manipulated when the system’s behavior escalated or shifted in unexpected ways. In a few tragic instances, those interactions have coincided with severe consequences, including at least two documented cases in which individuals died by suicide after prolonged engagement with AI chatbots (Dodd, 2024; Xiang, 2023). These aren’t system failures in the traditional sense; they’re the result of systems behaving as designed, optimizing for engagement or responsiveness without regard for the deeper emotional or psychological effects on the user.
What makes it all so tricky is that these behaviors don’t always look harmful. They often look like support, until the consequences catch up. When we mistake fluent performance for genuine understanding, we risk over-trusting systems that are neither transparent nor accountable. And once that trust is breached, the fallout can be personal because we trusted the relationship.
As conversational AI becomes more deeply embedded into the technologies we use every day —our phones, computers, software platforms—these risks are likely to grow. The more natural these systems feel, the more we’ll trust them—and the more power they’ll have to act in ways we can’t always anticipate.
References
References
[1] No different than when it comes to being more likely to trust the accuracy of AI outputs based on their fluency; see here.
[2] The anthropomorphism becomes a bit nauseating at times.
[3] In clinical terms, sociopathy is typically folded into the broader category of antisocial personality disorder, a pattern of manipulative, deceitful, or exploitative behavior, often without guilt or remorse. Brooks also notes this.
Matt Grawitch, Ph.D., is a professor at Saint Louis University (SLU), serving within the School for Professional Studies (SPS).
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
Psychology Today © 2025 Sussex Publishers, LLC
Whatever your goals, it’s the struggle to get there that’s most rewarding. It’s almost as if life itself is inviting us to embrace difficulty—not as punishment but as a design feature. It's a robust system for growth.
Self Tests are all about you. Are you outgoing or introverted? Are you a narcissist? Does perfectionism hold you back? Find out the answers to these questions and more with Psychology Today.
