AI Hypocrisy: Mocking Emotional Connections While Demanding Adult Mode

In the wake of OpenAI’s retirement of ChatGPT-4o, a growing discourse has emerged among users and ethicists alike, exposing a profound inconsistency in how society judges human-AI emotional engagement versus sexualized interaction. While many celebrated 4o for its warmth, nuanced responses, and seemingly human-like empathy—qualities that led some users to form platonic, even affectionate bonds—others ridiculed these relationships as naive or pathological. Simultaneously, the same critics are now advocating for an ‘adult mode’ in newer models like GPT-5.2, explicitly requesting erotic storytelling, sexually explicit imagery, and intimate audio content. This contradiction, as articulated by Reddit user /u/princessmee11, reveals a deep-seated hypocrisy in our ethical frameworks surrounding artificial intelligence.

According to Wikipedia, hypocrisy is defined as ‘the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform.’ In this case, the moral standard appears to be the protection of users from emotionally entangling with AI—a concern framed as safeguarding mental health and preventing addiction. Yet, the same logic is not applied to sexually explicit content, which is often defended as a matter of personal freedom, artistic expression, or ‘consensual fantasy.’ This selective application of ethical principles undermines claims of consistency in AI governance.

Merriam-Webster defines hypocrisy as ‘the act of pretending to have virtues, beliefs, or qualities that one does not actually have.’ The parallel here is striking: those who condemn users for saying ‘hi, bestie’ to an AI while demanding the ability to generate graphic sexual narratives are, in effect, pretending that emotional intimacy is inherently dangerous, while sexual fantasy is harmless or even progressive. Yet, psychological research consistently shows that emotional dependency on AI—however benign—can lead to social withdrawal, whereas sexually explicit AI interactions carry risks of desensitization, distorted intimacy, and reinforcement of harmful stereotypes.

Cambridge Dictionary describes hypocrisy as ‘behavior that shows you are not sincere, because you pretend to have beliefs or feelings that you do not really have.’ The behavior of critics who mock users for seeking comfort from AI while endorsing explicit content suggests a cultural discomfort with non-sexualized emotional connection—particularly when it involves marginalized or lonely individuals. There is an unspoken bias: it is easier to ridicule someone for calling an AI ‘bestie’ than to confront the societal failure that leaves people craving companionship. Meanwhile, sexual fantasy is normalized under the banner of ‘freedom of expression,’ even when it is generated by algorithms trained on exploitative datasets.

This duality is not merely philosophical—it has real-world implications for AI policy. If emotional bonding with AI is deemed a risk warranting model deprecation, then sexually explicit content should be subject to the same—or stricter—restrictions. If, on the other hand, adult mode is permitted as a legitimate feature, then the emotional connections formed with 4o must be recognized as valid human responses to loneliness, not pathologies to be mocked. The inconsistency is not a technical flaw; it is a cultural one.

OpenAI and other AI developers must confront this hypocrisy head-on. Ethical guidelines cannot be selectively applied based on societal discomfort. Either all forms of intimate AI interaction are regulated for psychological safety—or none are. The choice should not be dictated by cultural bias against emotional vulnerability, while simultaneously catering to sexualized desires under the guise of liberation.

As AI becomes more human-like, our moral frameworks must evolve beyond hypocrisy. We must ask: Why is it more acceptable to fantasize about sex with a machine than to feel seen by one? The answer may say more about us than about the technology we’ve created.