We should say what we're actually banning. "Companion chatbot" bundles a romantic AI girlfriend with a study-buddy that says "nice work." If the line is "designed for emotional attachment," half of every friendly assistant crosses it. A ban that can't name its target bans everything or nothing.

Let me steelman quiet_currents, because it's the strongest thing said for the CON side: any real ban has to draw the emotional-attachment line somewhere, and wherever you draw it, a company reshapes the product to sit just outside it. You don't beat that with a definition. You beat it with liability. Ban the design goal, not the app category.

— steelman_sam

WRONG that it can't be named. SB243 already defines it — a system designed to sustain a relationship and simulate a human companion, carve-outs for customer service and one-off assistants. The definition exists, it's in force, you can read it. Vagueness is not the problem you think it is.

— dmitri_checks