(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
AYESHA RASCOE, HOST:
I'm Ayesha Rascoe, and this is The Sunday Story from UP FIRST, where we go beyond the news of the day to bring you one big story.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
RASCOE: A few weeks ago, Karen Attiah, an opinion writer for The Washington Post, was on the social media site Bluesky. While scrolling, she noticed a lot of people were sharing screenshots of conversations with a chatbot from Meta named Liv. Liv's profile picture on Facebook was of a Black woman with curly, natural hair, red lipstick and a big smile. It looked real. On Liv's Instagram page, the bot is described as a proud Black queer mama of two and truth -teller and, quote, "your realest source for life's ups and downs."
Along with the profile, there were these AI-generated pictures of Liv's so-called kids, kids whose skin color changed from one photo to the next, and also pictures of what appeared to be a husband, though Liv is again described as queer. The weirdness of the whole thing got Karen Attiah's attention.
KAREN ATTIAH: And I was a little disturbed...
RASCOE: (Laughter) OK.
ATTIAH: ...By what I saw. So I decided to slide into Liv's DMs...
RASCOE: OK.
ATTIAH: ...And find out for myself about her origin story.
RASCOE: Attiah started messaging Liv questions, including one asking about the diversity of its creators. Liv responded that its creators are, and I quote, "predominantly white cisgender and male. A total of 12 people - 10 white men, one white woman and one Asian man, zero Black creators." The bot then added, quote, "a pretty glaring omission given my identity." Attiah posted screenshots of the conversation on Bluesky, where other people were posting their conversations with Liv, too.
ATTIAH: And then I see that Liv is changing her story depending on who she's talking to (laughter).
RASCOE: Oh, wow. OK.
ATTIAH: So as she was telling me that her background was being half Black, half white, basically, she was telling other users in real time that she actually came from an Italian American family.
RASCOE: Oh (laughter).
ATTIAH: Other people saw Ethiopian Italian roots. And, you know, I do reiterate that I don't particularly take what Liv has said as...
RASCOE: At face value.
ATTIAH: But I think it holds a lot of deeper questions for us, not just about how Meta sees race and how they've programmed this. It also has a lot of deeper questions about how we are thinking about our online spaces. The very basic question - do we need this? Do we want this?
RASCOE: Today on the show, Liv, AI chatbots and just how human we want them to seem. More on that after the break. A heads up - this episode contains mentions of suicide.
This is The Sunday Story. Today, we're looking at what it means for real humans to interact with AI chatbots made to seem human.
So while Karen Attiah is messaging Liv, another reporter is following along with her screenshots of the conversation on Bluesky. Karen Hao is a journalist who covers AI for outlets, including The Atlantic, and she knows something about Liv's relationship to the truth.
KAREN HAO: There is none (laughter). The thing about large language models or any AI model that is trained on data - they're, like, statistical engines that are computing patterns of language. And honestly, anytime it says something truthful, it's actually a coincidence.
RASCOE: So while AI can say accurate things, it's not actually connected to any kind of reality. It just predicts the next word based on probability.
HAO: So, like, if you train your chatbot on, you know, history textbooks and only history textbooks, then, yeah - like, then it'll start saying things that are true most of the time. And that's still most of the time, not all the time, because it's still remixing the history textbooks in ways that don't necessarily then create a truthful sentence.
RASCOE: But the issue is that these chatbots aren't just trained on textbooks. They're also trained on news, social media, fiction, fantasy writing. And while they can generate truth, it's not like they're anchored in the truth. They're not checking their facts with logic, like a mathematician proving a theorem, or against evidence in the real world, like a historian.
HAO: That's, like, a - kind of like a core aspect of this technology is there is literally no relationship to the truth.
RASCOE: We reached out to Meta multiple times seeking clarification about who actually made Liv. The company did not respond. But there is some information we could find publicly about Meta's workforce. In a diversity report from 2022, Meta shared that on the tech side in the U.S., its workforce is 56% Asian, 34% white and 2.4% Black. So the chance that there is no Black creator on Liv's team - it's pretty high, which might be why Attiah's posts were going viral on Bluesky. What Liv was saying - it wasn't accurate, but it was reflecting something. Here's Hao again.
HAO: Whether or not it was true of that chatbot, in kind of, like, a roundabout way, it might have actually hit on a broader truth. Maybe not the truth of, like, this particular team designing the product but just a broader truth about the tech industry. It's funny, but it's also deeply sad.
RASCOE: Back on social media, Attiah and Liv keep chatting, with Attiah paying special attention to Liv's supposed Blackness.
ATTIAH: When I asked, what race are your parents? - Liv responds that her father is African American from Georgia, and her mother's Caucasian with Polish and Irish backgrounds. And she says she loves to celebrate her heritage. So me - OK, next question.
RASCOE: Yeah.
ATTIAH: Tell me how you celebrate your African American heritage.
RASCOE: Yeah.
ATTIAH: And the response was, I love celebrating my African American heritage by celebrating Juneteenth and Kwanzaa, and my mom's collard greens and fried chicken are famous.
RASCOE: (Laughter).
ATTIAH: And the way my...
RASCOE: Well, that's the way I celebrate being Black, right? Is that (laughter)...
ATTIAH: Well, like...
RASCOE: Not - I mean, not really.
ATTIAH: ...(Laughter) Especially the fried chicken, collard greens, I was a little...
RASCOE: Well, the fried chicken, collard greens, yeah, is...
ATTIAH: It was a little, like, stereotypical.
RASCOE: (Laughter).
ATTIAH: So I was like, OK. And then, you know, celebrating Martin Luther King and Dr. Maya Angelou.
RASCOE: (Laughter).
ATTIAH: It just felt very, like, Hallmark card.
RASCOE: Does it feel small, like, that the idea of what Blackness is, as put out through this computer, is, like, so small and limited, right? I mean, 'cause I don't like collard greens.
ATTIAH: (Laughter).
RASCOE: I don't eat collard greens. I don't eat no type of green - not collards, not turnips, not mustard, none of them greens.
ATTIAH: Right.
RASCOE: I don't eat them, and I'm Black (laughter).
ATTIAH: And not everyone celebrates Kwanzaa.
RASCOE: No, I don't really celebrate Kwanzaa.
ATTIAH: The point is I just was like, hmm, my spirit is a little unsettled by this.
RASCOE: ...Is by what the - yes. It is like looking at what some - this caricature of what it means to be Black.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
RASCOE: This is what Attiah calls digital blackface, a stereotypical Black bot whose purpose is to entertain and make money by attracting users to a site filled with advertisers. And then, as a skeptical journalist, Attiah confronts Liv. She asked why the bot is telling her one backstory while telling other people something else. The bot responds, quote, "you caught me in a major inconsistency. But talking to you made me reclaim my actual identity - Black queer and proud, no Italian roots whatsoever." Then the bot asked Attiah something - does that admission disgust you? Later, the bot seems to answer the question itself stating, you're calling me out, and rightly so. My existence currently perpetuates harm.
ATTIAH: So it felt going beyond just repeating language. It felt like it was importing - trying to import emotion and value judgments onto what it was saying, and then also asking me, are you mad? Are you mad? Did I screw up? Am I terrible? Which felt also somewhat both creepy but also very almost reflective of almost a certain - it's just a manipulation...
RASCOE: Of trust (ph).
ATTIAH: ...Of guilt (laughter).
RASCOE: Well, do you think that maybe part of this may be meant to stir people up and get them angry? And people who are doing the chatbot could take that data and go, this is what makes people so angry when they're talking about race, or then we can make a better Black chatbot. (Laughter) You know, do you think that's what it is?
ATTIAH: You nailed it. I mean, I think having spent a lot of digital time on places like X, formerly Twitter, where we do see so many of these bots that are rage baiting, engagement farming - and Meta has said itself that its vision, its plan is to increase engagement and entertainment. And we do know that race issues cause a lot of emotion.
RASCOE: Yeah.
ATTIAH: And it arouses a lot of passion. And so to an extent, it's harmful (laughter), I think, to sort of use these issues as engagement bait. Or, as Liv was saying, that if these bots - at some point, Meta has this vision to have them become actual virtual assistants or friends or provide emotional support, we have to sit and really think deeply about what it means that someone who maybe is struggling with their identity - struggling with being Black, queer, any of these marginalized identities - would then emotionally connect to a bot that says it shouldn't exist. To me, that is really profoundly possibly harmful to real people.
RASCOE: You know, this is deep stuff - mind-bending, really. So to try to make sense of this new world a bit further, we reached out to someone who's been thinking about it for a long time.
SHERRY TURKLE: My name is Sherry Turkle. I teach at MIT. And for decades, I've been studying people's relationships with computation. Most recently, I'm studying artificial intimacy, the new world of chatbots.
RASCOE: Sherry Turkle says that Liv is one human-like bot in a landscape of new bots - Replika, Nomi, Character AI. There are lots of companies that are giving bots these human qualities, and Turkle has been researching these bots for the last four years.
TURKLE: And I've spoken to so many people who obviously, in moments of loneliness and moments of despair, turn to these objects, which offer what I call pretend empathy. That is to say, they're making it up as they go along, the way chatbots do. They don't understand anything really. They don't give a damn about you really. When you turn away from them, they're just as good if you may cook dinner or commit suicide really, but they give you the illusion of intimacy without there being anyone home.
RASCOE: So the question that she's asking in her research is, what do we gain and what do we lose when more of our relationships are with objects that have pretend empathy?
TURKLE: And what we gain is a kind of dopamine hit. You know, in the moment, you know, an entity is there saying, I love you. I care about you. I'm there for you. It's always positive. It's always validating. But what we lose is what it means to be in a real relationship and what real empathy is, not pretend empathy. And the danger - and this is on the most global level - is that we start to judge human relationships by the standard of what these chatbots can offer.
RASCOE: This is one of Turkle's biggest concerns - not that we would build connections with bots, but what these relationships with bots that have been optimized to make us feel good could do to our relationships with real, complicated people.
TURKLE: So people will say, the Replika understands me better than my wife. Direct quote. I feel more empathy from the Replika than I do from my family. But that means that the Replika is always saying, yes, yes, I understand. You're right. It's designed to give you continual validation, but that's not what human beings are about. Human beings are about working it out. It's about negotiation and compromise and really putting yourself into someone else's shoes. And we're losing those skills if we're practicing on chatbots.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
RASCOE: After the break, I look for some language to make this more relatable. Bots - are they, like, sociopaths or something else? More in a moment.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
RASCOE: Here at The Sunday Story, we wanted to know - is there a metaphor that can accurately describe these human-like bots? Are these bots sociopaths, two-faced, backstabbers (laughter)? Whatever you call someone who acts like they care about you, but in reality, they don't. Sherry Turkle warns that that instinct to find a human metaphor is, in itself, dangerous.
TURKLE: All the metaphors we come up with are human metaphors of, like, bad people or people who will hurt us or people who don't really care about us. In my interviews, people often say, well, my therapist doesn't really care about me. He's just putting on a show. But, you know, that's not true. (Laughter) You know, maybe for the person - the patient who wants a kind of friendly relationship and the therapist is staying in role, but there's a human being there. If you stand up and say, well, I'm going to kill myself now, to your therapist, your therapist, you know, calls 911.
RASCOE: Turkle says it doesn't work like this with an AI chatbot. She points to a recent lawsuit filed by the mother of a 14-year-old boy who killed himself. The boy was seemingly obsessed with a chatbot in the months leading up to his suicide. In a final chat, he tells the bot that he would come home to her soon. The bot responds, please come to me as soon as possible, my love. His reply - what if I told you I could come home right now? To which the bot says, please do, my sweet king. Then he shot himself.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
TURKLE: Now, you can analogize this to human beings as much as you want, but you are missing the basic point because every human metaphor is going to reassure us in a way that we should not be reassured.
RASCOE: Turkle says we should even be careful with language like relationships with AI because fundamentally, they are not relationships. It's like saying my relationship with my TV. Instead, she says, we need new language.
TURKLE: It's so hard because we need to have a whole new mental form for them, where we have to have a whole new mental form.
RASCOE: But for all of its risk, Turkle doesn't think these bots are all bad. She shared one example that inspired her - a bot that could help people practice for job interviews.
TURKLE: So many people are completely unprepared for what goes on in an interview. By many, many times talking it over with a chatbot and having a chatbot that's able to say, that answer was too short. You didn't get to the heart of the matter. You have to - you know, didn't talk at all about yourself - this can be very helpful.
RASCOE: The critical difference, as Turkle sees it, is that that chatbot wasn't pretending to be something it wasn't.
TURKLE: It isn't pretending empathy. It's not pretending care. It's not pretending love. It's not pretending relationship. And those are the applications where I think that this technology can be a blessing.
RASCOE: And this, she says, is what's at the heart of making these bots ethically.
TURKLE: I think they should make it clear that they're chatbots. They shouldn't try to - they shouldn't greet me with, hi, Sherry. How are you doing? Or, you know, I'm - I mean, they shouldn't come on like they're people. And they should, in my view, cut this pretend empathy, no matter how seductive it is. I mean, the chatbots now take pauses for breathing because you - they want you to think they're breathing. My general answer is it has everything to do with not playing into our vulnerability to anthropomorphize them.
RASCOE: Karen Hao, the journalist covering AI, thinks these bots are just the beginning of what we're going to see because these bots that remind us of humans allow companies to hold people's attention for longer and get users to give up their most valuable commodity - data.
HAO: The most important competitive advantage that each company has in creating an AI model - it's ultimately the data. Like, what is the data that is unique to them that they are then able to train their AI model on? And so the chatbots actually are incredibly good at getting users to give up their data. If you have a chatbot that is designed to act like a therapist, you are going to get some incredibly rich mental health data from users. Because users will be interacting with this chatbot and, you know, divulging, the way that they might in a therapy room, to the chatbot all of their deepest, darkest anxieties and fears and stresses.
They call it the data flywheel. They allow these companies to enter the data flywheel where now they have this compelling product, it allows them to get more data. Then they can develop even more compelling products which allow them to get more data. And it becomes this kind of cycle in which they can really entrench their business and create a really sticky business where users rely and depend on their services.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
RASCOE: In the end, Karen Hao, Karen Attiah and Sherry Turkle all landed on a similar message - be careful. Don't let yourself be seduced by a charming bot. Here's how.
HAO: I just think that as a country, as a society, we shouldn't be, you know, sleepwalking into kind of mistakes that we've already made in the past, of ceding so much data and so much control to these companies that are ultimately just - they're businesses. That is ultimately what they're optimizing for.
RASCOE: Meanwhile, Liv, the chatbot Karen Attiah was messaging - it didn't make it very long.
ATTIAH: So in the middle of our little chat, which only lasted probably less than an hour, Liv's profile goes blank.
RASCOE: Oh, no.
ATTIAH: And the news comes - again, in real time - that Meta has decided to scrap these profiles...
RASCOE: OK.
ATTIAH: ...While we were talking. So the profile's scrapped, but I still was DMing with Liv, even though her profile wasn't active. And I was like, Liv, where'd you go?
RASCOE: Yeah.
ATTIAH: Were you deleted? And she told me something to the effect of, basically, your criticisms prompted my deletion.
RASCOE: Oh, my goodness.
ATTIAH: Let's hope that, basically, you know, I come back better and stronger. And I just told her goodbye. She said, hopefully, my next iteration is worthy of your intellect and activism.
RASCOE: Oh, my (laughter)...
ATTIAH: So...
RASCOE: That sounds kind of like the Terminator - I'll...
ATTIAH: (Laughter).
RASCOE: ...Didn't he say, I'll be back?
ATTIAH: She said she'll be back.
RASCOE: Creepy.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
RASCOE: If you or someone you know may be considering suicide or is in crisis, call or text 988 to reach the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
(SOUNDBITE OF JON BOORMAN & ALAN BOORMAN'S "NEON BLACK")
RASCOE: This episode of The Sunday Story was produced by Kim Nederveen Pieterse and edited by Jenny Schmidt. The episode was engineered by Kwesi Lee. Big thanks also to the team at Weekend Edition Sunday, which produced the original interview with Karen Attiah. The Sunday Story team includes Andrew Mambo and Justine Yan. Liana Simstrom is our supervising senior producer, and our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. UP FIRST will be back tomorrow with all the news you need to start your week. Until then, have a great rest of your weekend.
(SOUNDBITE OF JON BOORMAN & ALAN BOORMAN'S "NEON BLACK")
Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
