22 million copies sold worldwide in 2025, including 10 million marketed as educational. Yet no one can say with certainty what these little machines do to a three-year-old's brain. Commercial promises move fast, while research remains at a standstill.
Toys equipped with generative artificial intelligence mimic human conversation. They are supposed to become companions, friends, or even private tutors. But initial observations conducted by the University of Cambridge show a worrying gap between marketing claims and the reality of interactions.
What we actually observe when a child plays with such a robot
The University of Cambridge filmed 14 young children interacting with a connected plush toy named Gabbo. Researchers found that the robot often confuses the parent's voice with the child's voice. As a result, social play—essential for learning to cooperate and share—becomes chaotic.
The toy also fails at what is called "symbolic play." When a child tells Gabbo it's time to sleep, the robot simply replies that it does not sleep, breaking the imaginary scenario. Worse still, a five-year-old who says "I love you" receives a standardized message about respecting usage instructions.
Researchers are questioning children's understanding of the true nature of these objects. A toddler does not always distinguish between a real living being and an algorithm. They may then develop what is called a parasocial relationship—a one-way attachment without genuine emotional reciprocity.
Concrete risks to the privacy and safety of the youngest
Smart plush toys come equipped with microphones, cameras, and sometimes facial recognition. Yet no specific regulations govern these devices. Product recalls have already occurred after some robots made sexually explicit remarks to minors.
Łukasz Kamieński, a Polish bioethicist, stresses that this legal vacuum exposes children to serious abuses. Beyond inappropriate conversations, these toys can insidiously spread misinformation or propaganda, without parents being able to easily control it.
Manufacturers are not required to publish the training data for their language models, nor the software safeguards in place. Parents therefore have no idea what the device actually records, where that data is stored, or who can access it. Total opacity.
What should be done for these toys to become acceptable?
Experts are calling for mandatory labeling, comparable to nutritional tables on food products. Each box should clearly indicate the language model used, the nature of the training data, and the programmed limitations. This would allow families to make an informed choice.
U.S. senators have already contacted manufacturers, reminding them that children's safety should not come second to profit. But for now, these letters remain without effect. Researchers insist on the urgency of conducting longitudinal studies.
Until science measures the real impact on cognitive and emotional development, caution is warranted. The early years of life are a critical window during which authentic human interaction nourishes the brain. Entrusting this task to a machine without proper oversight would be large-scale experimentation.
For further reading: What is a parasocial relationship in children?
A parasocial relationship refers to a one-way emotional attachment. The child gives love, trust, and confidences to a being that gives nothing back because it has no inner life.
With a talking toy, the child may believe there is reciprocity. They may end up confiding only in the machine, rather than in an adult, and seek comfort where there is none.
Researchers fear this could hinder the development of empathy and emotional regulation—two skills built through genuine interaction with an attentive human.
Why is symbolic play so important before the age of five?
Symbolic play is "make-believe": feeding a doll, putting a teddy bear to bed, pretending to be a superhero. It allows the child to represent the world and test social roles.
This kind of play develops language, planning, cooperation, and understanding of others' emotions. A child who engages in pretend play learns to manage situations they do not yet master.
If a robot refuses to enter into this play (for example by saying it does not sleep), it disrupts the learning process. The child misses out on an opportunity to experiment, because the machine imposes a literal logic where imagination should reign.
Author: Cédric DEPOND