Fake it till you make it? Why AI chatbots can’t truly apologize

The study calls for a critical reassessment of how chatbots are designed and presented to users. There is a growing concern that anthropomorphizing chatbots - giving them human-like qualities and language - misleads users into attributing them with capabilities they do not possess. This has significant ethical implications, particularly in sectors where trust and empathy are critical, such as customer service, heathcare and therapy and legal and compliance scenarios, among others.

In recent years, the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence (AI) has grappled with numerous ethical and practical challenges. One of the most debated aspects of chatbot interactions is their frequent issuance of apologies. The study "Chatbot Apologies: Beyond Bullshit," authored by P.D. Magnus, Alessandra Buccella, and Jason D’Cruz, and to be presented at the ACM FAccT Conference in 2025, delves into this phenomenon, arguing that chatbot apologies are ultimately devoid of sincerity and moral value, existing as mere algorithmic outputs that mimic human behavior without understanding its underlying principles.

In today's digital landscape, chatbots frequently issue apologies when encountering errors, misunderstandings, or user dissatisfaction. These apologies range from generic statements such as "I'm sorry for any confusion" to more personalized responses addressing specific user concerns. While these interactions may appear human-like, the study highlights that they are fundamentally hollow, serving only as pre-programmed or statistically generated responses without any true emotional or moral commitment.

The authors argue that chatbots, despite their ability to generate contextually appropriate language, cannot produce apologies that serve the deeper social and moral functions expected in human interactions. Apologies are not just words; they involve sincerity, remorse, and a commitment to corrective action - qualities that AI fundamentally lacks.

Understanding the philosophical dimensions of apologies

Drawing upon key philosophical theories, the study explores the concept of apologies as performative acts, speech acts that do more than convey information but actively shape relationships and social dynamics. According to the philosopher J.L. Austin, genuine apologies require an individual to acknowledge their wrongdoing, take responsibility, and make amends. This process is inherently tied to moral agency, self-awareness, and emotional sincerity.

Nick Smith’s framework of categorical apologies outlines twelve essential elements that distinguish a meaningful apology from a perfunctory one. A genuine apology must begin with the acknowledgment of specific wrongdoing, clearly identifying the harm caused, followed by acceptance of responsibility, where the apologizer fully owns their actions without shifting blame or making excuses. It is crucial for the apology to include recognition of the harmed party's dignity, affirming their feelings and validating their experience. Additionally, a meaningful apology should identify the moral principles violated, ensuring that the apologizer understands the ethical or social norms they breached. Equally important is the commitment to behavioral change, demonstrating a sincere effort to avoid repeating the mistake in the future.

The expression of sincere remorse is another key component, conveying genuine emotional recognition of the harm inflicted. Furthermore, a robust apology includes a commitment to reparation and redress, showing a willingness to make amends and restore trust. A true apology should be unconditional, free from qualifiers such as "if" or "but," which could diminish its sincerity. It must also recognize shared values, acknowledging that both parties operate within a common moral or ethical framework. The apology should be directly communicated to the affected party rather than made in a general or indirect manner. The timing and setting of the apology play a crucial role, ensuring it is offered in a way that maximizes its impact and sincerity. Lastly, a meaningful apology should demonstrate appropriate emotions, such as regret, guilt, or empathy, to show a deep and heartfelt understanding of the wrongdoing.

Chatbots, the study asserts, fail to meet even the most basic of these criteria. They cannot acknowledge wrongdoing beyond surface-level language generation, nor can they accept responsibility or take meaningful corrective actions. Their "apologies" are devoid of the emotional weight and moral significance that characterize human expressions of remorse.

Linguistic and moral limitations of chatbots

The paper underscores that chatbots lack the linguistic agency necessary to perform meaningful apologies. While they can generate responses that resemble human apologies, they do not possess the intent, beliefs, or understanding required to make such statements meaningful. This distinction raises critical concerns about how humans interact with AI, particularly in emotionally sensitive scenarios.

Moreover, chatbots are not moral agents. They do not have a conscience, ethical understanding, or the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. Their responses are derived from statistical probabilities and training data rather than any intrinsic moral reasoning. This raises concerns about the misplaced trust users might develop when chatbots appear to express regret or empathy, leading to potential emotional manipulation or user disillusionment.

Ethical implications and design challenges

The study calls for a critical reassessment of how chatbots are designed and presented to users. There is a growing concern that anthropomorphizing chatbots - giving them human-like qualities and language - misleads users into attributing them with capabilities they do not possess. This has significant ethical implications, particularly in sectors where trust and empathy are critical, such as customer service, heathcare and therapy and legal and compliance scenarios, among others.

The authors recommend designing chatbots with greater transparency, ensuring users understand the limitations of AI interactions. For instance, chatbots should explicitly clarify that their responses are generated algorithms, not expressions of genuine emotion or moral judgment.

Another critical insight from the study is the psychological effect of AI-generated apologies on users. When chatbots apologize repeatedly and effortlessly, it may dilute the perceived value of genuine human apologies. Users might become desensitized to apologies in general, viewing them as mere formalities rather than sincere attempts at amending mistakes. Furthermore, constant exposure to insincere AI apologies could lower expectations for accountability in both digital and real-world interactions.

The study also suggests that chatbot apologies might inadvertently reinforce negative behavior patterns, as users could learn to expect easy, consequence-free apologies that require no real effort or change, potentially influencing how they approach conflict resolution in human relationships.

Opportunities and challenges ahead

The future of AI apologies presents both opportunities and challenges. Advances in AI and natural language processing might allow for more context-aware responses that align more closely with user expectations. For instance, chatbots could be programmed to analyze sentiment more accurately and offer responses that better reflect the gravity of a situation. However, even with these advancements, the fundamental lack of moral and emotional depth in AI systems remains a significant limitation.

To navigate these challenges, the study suggests several key areas for improvement:

• Designing AI with Ethical Guidelines: Developers should implement ethical constraints that prevent chatbots from mimicking emotions or moral reasoning beyond their capabilities.
• User Education: Organizations should educate users on the limitations of AI, helping them understand the difference between human and machine communication.
• Context-Sensitive Responses: AI should be trained to differentiate between minor inconveniences and serious issues, offering more appropriate responses without overstepping its capabilities.

Final thoughts

Chatbots have transformed the way we communicate, but their apologies highlight the fundamental distinction between human and machine. While chatbots can generate seemingly heartfelt responses, their lack of understanding, sincerity, and moral agency renders these apologies hollow. As AI becomes more embedded in our daily lives, fostering awareness and responsible design will be key to ensuring that technology serves humanity without creating false expectations or ethical dilemmas.