Video: Curiosity, frustration and antipathy: How kids play with AI toys
Our take
The University of Washington’s recent study on how children interact with AI toys, captured in a revealing video, isn’t just a quirky glimpse into childhood curiosity—it’s a crucial early warning sign about the future of human-AI relationships. The initial wonder and polite questioning ("What’s your name?") quickly give way to frustration and, frankly, a delightful kind of cruelty as the kids encounter the limitations of these nascent technologies. The shift to calling the toys "ugly" and joking about aquatic disposal isn't malicious; it's a pragmatic response to a system that doesn’t quite deliver on its promises of intelligent companionship. This mirrors broader concerns about the rapidly evolving AI landscape, highlighted in articles like AI models nearly erase female characters when they write kids stories about animals, where biases embedded in AI systems are already impacting even seemingly innocuous children’s stories. The study underscores that children, with their unfiltered honesty, are incredibly adept at identifying flaws and inconsistencies, essentially performing a real-world stress test on AI’s current capabilities.
What’s striking about the kids' behavior isn’t the antagonism itself, but the *reasoning* behind it. They aren't simply lashing out; they're reacting to broken expectations. They’re treating the toys as if they *should* be able to understand and respond in meaningful ways, and when that fails, they adapt their interaction accordingly. This is a vital point. We tend to talk about AI as if it's a monolithic entity, but these toys are interfaces – imperfect communication channels. The children's frustration isn't necessarily with AI itself, but with the limitations of the current technology and the disconnect between the marketing hype and the actual experience. The history of interactive toys, from the infamous Chatty Cathy who randomly repeated phrases, illustrates a long-standing challenge: creating believable and engaging interactions that don’t disappoint. This UW study adds a new layer to that challenge, forcing us to consider how children's developing understanding of the world shapes their acceptance of, and engagement with, AI.
The implications extend far beyond the toy aisle. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into our lives – from education to healthcare – we need to be acutely aware of how people, especially children, will perceive and interact with these systems. Will they develop a sense of trust and reliance, or will they learn to approach AI with a healthy dose of skepticism? The kids in the UW study aren’t rejecting AI entirely; they’re simply adjusting their expectations and employing creative problem-solving strategies when the technology falls short. This adaptability is a strength, but it also highlights the need for transparency and realistic communication about what AI can and cannot do. We shouldn't be selling children (or anyone else) on the promise of perfect AI companions, but rather educating them about the technology’s capabilities and limitations. The potential for misinterpretation and disappointment is real, and the emotional consequences, particularly for vulnerable populations, could be significant.
Ultimately, the UW study serves as a potent reminder that AI development isn't just a technical endeavor; it’s a social and psychological one. The way we design and deploy AI will profoundly shape our relationships with technology and with each other. As AI becomes more sophisticated and pervasive, it's crucial that we prioritize ethical considerations, user experience, and a commitment to transparency. A key question to watch moving forward is: will developers learn from the children’s unfiltered feedback, and adapt their approach to creating AI that is not only intelligent but also genuinely useful and engaging—or will we continue to build systems that invite frustration and, perhaps, the occasional threat of being tossed into the ocean?
Claims of “smart” toys go back decades. See Chatty Cathy and Furby. But generative artificial intelligence is increasing the capabilities of interactive toys. The company Curio, for instance, markets itself as a “magical workshop where toys come to life.” Its plush toys like Gabbo or one modeled on the Italian brainrot character Ballerina Cappuccina have onboard AI models that let them talk to kids, remember their conversations and personalize responses. But we know little about how such toys affect kids and even how kids play with them.
Last summer, University of Washington researchers gathered eight kids on campus to explore such questions. The 6-11 year olds played with three Curio toys and reflected on the experience with KidsTeam UW, a group of researchers who work with kids to collaboratively design technologies.
The kids initially were curious, asking introductory questions, such as “What is your name?” and exploring how the toys work. Do they react when a kid tickles their toes? They do not, which proved a disappointment. Some features delighted the kids, like when a toy said its favorite number was seven. But the toys frequently couldn’t respond well to more complex questions. It “didn’t listen to me like 26 million times,” one participant said. So they turned to antagonizing the toys, calling them “ugly” and “evil” and joking about throwing them in the ocean.
The team presented its research June 25 at the Interaction Design and Children conference in Brighton, United Kingdom.
“The juxtaposition of this plushie toy that also had signs of intelligence was both interesting and disturbing for the kids,” said co-lead author Aayushi Dangol, who completed this research as a UW doctoral student in human centered design and engineering and is currently a researcher at Foundry10. “If parents are considering buying these toys for children, they need to be aware that while the toys can be fun and relational and dynamic, they also come with possible harms. They’ll give wrong answers, or flatter the kids excessively, or could manipulate the kids into attachment.”
The eight kids came in for two sessions to play with the toys and then complete a “comicboarding” activity, where they filled in comic panels imagining what might happen next if they kept playing with the toys.
The study builds on KidsTeam’s long-running vein of research looking at how kids respond to tech — exploring what makes a technology “creepy” and how smart kids actually think AI is.
“For as long as children have played with toys, they’ve imparted their imagination to the toy to make it move and talk,” said co-author Jason Yip, a UW associate professor in the Information School and director of KidsTeam UW. “Now the script has been flipped and the toy has this imitation of imagination. We’ve never lived through that before, and we don’t know what questions children will ask or how long they’ll even want to play with these toys. So it’s really important to give them opportunities to discuss these technologies we’re handing down to them.”
Co-authors include Meghna Gupta, a UW doctoral student in human centered design and engineering; Daeun Yoo, a UW doctoral student in the Information School; Robert Wolfe of Rutgers University, who completed this research as a UW doctoral student; Franziska Roesner, a UW professor in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering; and Julie A. Kientz, UW professor and chair of human centered design and engineering.
This research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Institute of Education Sciences, the U.S. Department of Education, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
For more information, contact Dangol at aayushi@foundry10.org and Yip at jcyip@uw.edu.
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience