‘Emotional intimacy’ from AI chatbots would be banned under Australia’s digital duty of care laws

Biblical Context

Children’s dependence on artificial companions raises a meaningful biblical concern because Scripture treats children as especially worthy of protection and presents human relationship—not technological substitution—as part of ordinary created life. Jesus gives a severe warning against causing “little ones” to stumble or be harmed (Matthew 18:6). That principle does not directly prescribe AI legislation, but it supports careful attention to systems that may exploit or intensify children’s vulnerability. Genesis 2:18 describes human companionship as a good and necessary feature of God’s created order. The passage does not address artificial intelligence, and it would be too strong to claim that every digital relationship is inherently wrong. It does, however, provide a relevant basis for questioning systems designed to encourage children to replace human relationships with simulated emotional intimacy. The proposed external complaints mechanism also connects with biblical concerns for justice and the protection of those who may lack power when dealing with large institutions. Proverbs 31:8-9 calls for defending those who cannot effectively speak for themselves and judging fairly. This is a principle for public and personal conduct, not a blueprint for an ombudsman system; its application to platform regulation is therefore interpretive but meaningful. Romans 13:1-4 recognizes a legitimate role for civil authorities in restraining wrongdoing and pursuing the public good. That does not settle whether Australia’s particular bill is proportionate, effective or consistent with free expression. It does support the general legitimacy of government action to protect citizens, while leaving room for scrutiny of whether the proposed powers are exercised justly. Scripture offers no specific prophecy concerning Australia’s regulation of AI chatbots, social-media algorithms or technology complaints, so the policy debate should not be presented as the fulfillment of a prophetic prediction.