The rise of AI-powered toys and companions is drawing serious concern from researchers who study how young children’s brains develop through human interaction.
Dana Suskind, a professor of surgery and pediatrics at the University of Chicago Medical Center, has published a new book titled “Human Raised: Nurturing Connection, Curiosity & Lifelong Learning in the Age of AI.”
Suskind’s original working title for the book was “The Trojan Teddy Bear,” a warning that AI companions may appear harmless but carry concealed risks for child development.
A wave of technology startups is now creating AI-powered dolls, action figures, and robots designed to serve as interactive companions for children in homes and classrooms.
Suskind argues that while previous technologies like television kept children occupied passively, AI systems engage children in ways that simulate real social relationships.
She cites the research of University of Washington developmental psychologist Patricia K. Kuhl, who proposed the “social gate” hypothesis, suggesting children’s brains are biologically primed to learn through social interaction.
Studies have shown that babies learn language significantly better from live human interaction than from screens, with back-and-forth exchanges appearing to drive healthy brain development.
“Eye contact, shared laughter, patient answers to ‘why’ questions activate ancient neural circuits designed for connection,” Suskind writes, adding that no algorithm can replicate that form of nourishment.
Suskind compares heavy AI exposure for young children to a diet of ultra-processed food, noting that synthetic substitutes can diminish a child’s appetite for the real thing.
“If all you eat is fruit snacks, which is a synthetic version of fruit, when you actually eat the real fruit, you’re gonna be like, ‘Hmm, it’s not quite as sweet,'” Suskind says.
She draws a historical parallel to the 19th century, when German chemist Justus von Liebig created one of the first infant formulas, which a French physician tested on four newborns who all died within days.
The lesson Suskind draws is that engineering substitutes for something as biologically and emotionally complex as human caregiving demands extreme caution before widespread adoption.
She is particularly concerned that a fully human-raised childhood could eventually become a luxury good, affordable only to families with the time and financial resources to prioritize it.
Suskind also warns that children raised primarily by AI may be less prepared for an AI-driven economy, not more, as human-centered jobs may grow in importance.
University of Chicago economist Alex Imas has argued that as AI automates more cognitive tasks, human employment may concentrate increasingly in what he calls “the relational sector,” including education, health care, hospitality, and therapy.
Suskind emphasizes that it is especially critical to protect very young children from AI during their earliest years, before core neural circuits have finished forming.
“Older children and adults encounter AI with already-built neural scaffolding, but young children are still wiring the very circuits that shape future learning and relationships,” she writes.
She acknowledges that AI can serve as a valuable educational tool when used to enhance, rather than replace, the role of human caregivers and teachers.
Suskind argues that cultivating what she calls “the Human Edge,” including critical thinking, empathy, creativity, and resilience, will be among the most economically valuable investments parents can make.
In a world increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence, the most marketable and enduring skills may ultimately prove to be the ones that are the most deeply and irreducibly human.
