# Lessons From an App Update at Replika AI: Identity Discontinuity in Human-AI Relationships

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14190 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14190/

## Key facts

- Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 0 of its 2 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Dec 2024.

## Built on by (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Mapping Caregiver Needs to AI Chatbot Design: Strengths and Gaps in Mental Health Support for Alzheimer's and Dementia Caregivers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.15047/) (2025)
- [Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narratives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.15783/) (2025)
- [Mental Health Impacts of AI Companions: Triangulating Social Media Quasi-Experiments, User Perspectives, and Relational Theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.22505/) (2025)
- [Digital Companionship: Overlapping Uses of AI Companions and AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.15905/) (2025)
- [ComBodied Agents: a New Paradigm of Human-Centric Agentic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.10915/) (2026)
- [Persona-Grounded Safety Evaluation of AI Companions in Multi-Turn Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00227/) (2026)
- [Thinking While Speaking: Inference-Time Knowledge Transfer for Responsive and Intelligent Conversational Voice Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.07397/) (2025)
- [Towards Safer Chatbots: Automated Policy Compliance Evaluation of Custom GPTs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01436/) (2025)
- [Alignment Is Not Enough: A Relational Framework for Moral Standing in Human-AI Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.00078/) (2026)
- [Unilateral Relationship Revision Power in Human-AI Companion Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.23315/) (2026)
- [Empathy Is Not What Changed: Clinical Assessment of Psychological Safety Across GPT Model Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.09997/) (2026)
- [The Epistemic Politics of AI Anthropomorphism](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.00961/) (2026)
- [Which LLM Is Your Ideal Companion? Evaluating Emotional Companion Capabilities of LLMs Based on Adult Attachment Theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13168/) (2026)
- [LLMs as Oracles: Reliance on LLMs for Subjective Personal Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.14849/) (2026)
- [Disrupted Companionship: A Risk Assessment Framework and Cross-Platform Quantitative Analysis of Psychosocial Responses to AI Companion Disruptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.16907/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Can consumers form especially deep emotional bonds with AI and be vested in AI identities over time? We leverage a natural app-update event at Replika AI, a popular US-based AI companion, to shed light on these questions. We find that, after the app removed its erotic role play (ERP) feature, preventing intimate interactions between consumers and chatbots that were previously possible, this event triggered perceptions in customers that their AI companion's identity had discontinued. This in turn predicted negative consumer welfare and marketing outcomes related to loss, including mourning the loss, and devaluing the "new" AI relative to the "original". Experimental evidence confirms these findings. Further experiments find that AI companions users feel closer to their AI companion than even their best human friend, and mourn a loss of their AI companion more than a loss of various other inanimate products. In short, consumers are forming human-level relationships with AI companions; disruptions to these relationships trigger real patterns of mourning as well as devaluation of the offering; and the degree of mourning and devaluation are explained by perceived discontinuity in the AIs identity. Our results illustrate that relationships with AI are truly personal, creating unique benefits and risks for consumers and firms alike.