Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the ethical implications of using large language models (LLMs) as multi-specialist counselors, arguing that their stateless and unpredictable nature creates a new form of "advisory intimacy without a subject." It critiques existing AI ethics frameworks for inadequately addressing the risks associated with LLMs providing advice in sensitive domains like health and relationships, where users may perceive deep understanding and support without any accountable human agent. The authors contend that this configuration necessitates a re-evaluation of policy-making, justice in access to counseling, and the understanding of loneliness in the context of modern human-AI interaction.
The rise of LLMs as ubiquitous counselors creates a dangerous "advisory intimacy without a subject," where users perceive understanding and support that doesn't actually exist, and no one is truly responsible.
Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly shifted from peripheral assistive tools to constant companions in everyday and even high stakes human decision making. Many users now consult these models about health, intimate relationships, finance, education, and identity, because LLMs are, in practice, multi domain, inexpensive, always available, and seemingly nonjudgmental. At the same time, from a technical perspective these models rely on transformer architectures, exhibit highly unpredictable behavior in detail, and are fundamentally stateless; conceptually, they lack any real subjectivity, intention, or responsibility. This article argues that the combination of this technical architecture with the social position of LLMs as multis pecialist counselors in an age of human loneliness produces a new kind of advisory intimacy without a subject. In this new relation, model outputs are experienced as if they contained deep understanding, neutrality, emotional support, and user level control, while at the deeper level there is no human agent who is straightforwardly responsible or answerable. By reviewing dominant strands of AI ethics critique, we show that focusing only on developer liability, data bias, or emotional attachment to chatbots is insufficient to capture this configuration. We then explore the ethical and political implications of this advisory intimacy without a subject for policy-making, for justice in access to counseling, and for how we understand loneliness in the contemporary world.
