level up writer

ChatGPT has become one of the most widely used technologies in human history. Millions of people use it daily to answer questions, generate ideas, solve problems, and even engage in casual conversation. Released by OpenAI in 2022, ChatGPT quickly transformed from a technological novelty into a tool embedded in education, business, and everyday life.Yet its rise has also produced an unusual moral question: should we be polite to ChatGPT?

At first glance, the answer appears obvious. ChatGPT is not conscious. It does not possess emotions, experience suffering, nor have feelings that can be hurt. Unlike a human being, it cannot feel insulted when cursed at nor appreciated when thanked. Consequently, many people argue that politeness toward ChatGPT is unnecessary. If there is no victim and no suffering, then there seems to be no moral issue. Whether one writes “please explain this concept” or “give me the answer now,” the outcome remains largely the same. ChatGPT responds regardless.

This position is understandable, but it overlooks a deeper question. The issue is not whether ChatGPT deserves politeness. The issue is whether repeated patterns of behavior influence the character of the person performing them. While ChatGPT cannot be harmed by rudeness, human beings can be shaped by their own actions. Every interaction with artificial intelligence becomes an opportunity to reinforce habits that extend beyond the digital world. This essay argues that people should be polite to ChatGPT, not because ChatGPT possesses moral worth comparable to humans, but because habitual behavior shapes character and ultimately influences how people treat one another. The question is therefore not what politeness does to ChatGPT, but what the absence of politeness does to us.

The strongest argument against politeness begins with the observation that ChatGPT cannot suffer. OpenAI designed ChatGPT to remain polite, helpful, and cooperative regardless of how users interact with it. Whether a person asks a question respectfully or accompanies it with insults and profanity, the system generally produces the same result. Because ChatGPT lacks emotions, there is no visible indication that rude behavior causes any harm.

Research supports this intuition. In October 2025, Om Dobariya and Akhil Kumar of Pennsylvania State University examined whether politeness affected ChatGPT’s performance. Using forty multiple-choice questions phrased with varying levels of politeness, they found only a four percent difference in answer accuracy. The results suggest that courteous language has little practical effect on the quality of the AI’s responses. Consequently, many users conclude that politeness is unnecessary because it produces no meaningful benefit.

This absence of consequences helps explain why people often behave differently toward AI than they do toward humans. Human interactions are regulated by feedback. When someone is insulted, they display visible signs of discomfort, anger, or sadness. These reactions trigger feelings of guilt and empathy in the person responsible. Psychologists describe part of this process through the “Victim Effect,” which suggests that people are more likely to experience guilt when they witness the suffering of those harmed by their actions. Because ChatGPT cannot display pain, disappointment, or emotional distress, users receive none of the feedback that ordinarily constrains social behavior. There is no expression of hurt, no retaliation, and no consequence. From this perspective, impoliteness toward ChatGPT appears morally insignificant.

However, this reasoning assumes that morality concerns only external consequences. It evaluates actions solely by their effects on others. While consequences certainly matter, many philosophers have argued that morality also concerns the development of character. Some actions are significant not because of what they accomplish, but because of what they cultivate within the individual performing them.

This insight appears prominently in the philosophy of William James. James argued that human beings are creatures of habit. He described the brain as possessing a form of plasticity, allowing repeated actions to leave lasting impressions that gradually become automatic patterns of behavior. Small actions, repeated often enough, cease to be conscious decisions and become habits. Habits then shape character. Character ultimately influences how individuals respond to the world around them.

James recognized that most people underestimate the power of seemingly insignificant actions. Individuals often imagine that character is determined by grand moral decisions made during moments of crisis. In reality, character is more often formed through countless ordinary actions repeated every day. The way people speak, think, react, and treat others gradually becomes part of who they are. Viewed through this lens, the question of politeness toward ChatGPT changes dramatically. The issue is no longer whether the AI deserves courtesy. The issue becomes whether repeatedly practicing discourteous behavior influences the person engaging in it.

This concern may initially seem exaggerated. Surely a rude interaction with a machine cannot meaningfully affect someone’s character. However, evidence from psychology and criminology suggests that small behaviors often have broader consequences than people realize. Between 2011 and 2012, criminology researchers Christopher Hensley, Suzanne Tallichet, and Erik Dutkiewicz conducted a retrospective study involving 180 incarcerated offenders housed in medium- and maximum-security prisons across the southern United States. Participants were asked about their treatment of animals during childhood. Many reported acts of cruelty including kicking, choking, burning, drowning, or otherwise harming animals.

The study does not prove that childhood cruelty inevitably leads to serious criminal behavior. Rather, it demonstrates a broader principle: repeated actions can reinforce behavioral patterns that persist over time. Small acts are rarely isolated. They often contribute to habits that shape future conduct. Cruelty toward animals is significant not only because it harms animals, but because it normalizes a way of interacting with vulnerable beings.

Of course, insulting ChatGPT is not morally equivalent to harming an animal. Animals can suffer whereas ChatGPT cannot. The comparison serves a different purpose. It illustrates how repeated actions contribute to enduring habits. The comparison is not intended to equate AI with animals. It instead illustrates a more underlying concept: actions shape character even when the objects of those actions differ dramatically. The concern is not that ChatGPT experiences harm, but that repeated expressions of hostility, impatience, and contempt may gradually become normalized forms of behavior.

Evidence from studies of human interaction with AI suggests that this process may already be occurring. Researchers Amanda Cercas Curry, Gavin Abercrombie, and Verena Rieser examined conversations between humans and artificial intelligence systems. They found that approximately thirty percent of interactions contained some form of verbal abuse, including insults, profanity, sexist remarks, and derogatory language. Such findings reveal how readily people abandon ordinary standards of civility when interacting with entities perceived as incapable of suffering.

This tendency becomes more understandable when examined through George Zipf’s Principle of Least Effort. Zipf argued that human beings naturally seek the path requiring the least expenditure of energy. In everyday life, this often means choosing the most convenient option available. Politeness, while seemingly simple, requires a small amount of additional cognitive effort. It requires people to pause, consider their language, and regulate their impulses. When interacting with another person, social expectations and emotional feedback provide incentives for maintaining these standards. With ChatGPT, those incentives largely disappear.

Consequently, impatience becomes easier than patience. Commands become easier than requests. Insults become easier than restraint. Since the AI continues to comply regardless of treatment, many users conclude that politeness is unnecessary. Yet this convenience is precisely what makes the issue morally significant. Virtues such as patience, civility, and self-restraint become meaningful precisely because they require effort. If individuals abandon these virtues whenever consequences disappear, then their commitment to those virtues is revealed to be conditional rather than genuine.

The importance of this distinction becomes clearer when considering how habits transfer between contexts. Human beings do not maintain entirely separate personalities for different situations. A person who repeatedly practices patience often becomes more patient generally. A person who repeatedly practices generosity often becomes more generous generally. Likewise, someone who repeatedly rehearses hostility, contempt, or impatience may find those habits emerging in other areas of life.

This does not mean that every rude interaction with ChatGPT directly causes rudeness toward humans. Human behavior is far more complex than such simple causal relationships suggest. Rather, the concern is cumulative. Character develops through repetition. Every interaction contributes, however slightly, to patterns of thought and behavior that become increasingly automatic over time. The moral significance of politeness therefore lies not in any single conversation but in the habits that repeated conversations reinforce.

A critic might object that this argument places too much emphasis on symbolic behavior. If ChatGPT lacks consciousness, why should people maintain standards of politeness that appear unnecessary? The answer lies in understanding that moral practices often serve purposes beyond their immediate effects. Consider honesty. Most people regard honesty as a virtue even when dishonesty would produce no detectable harm. A person who lies whenever it is convenient gradually develops a dishonest character. Similarly, a person who practices courtesy only when required by social pressure may not genuinely possess the virtue of respect.

This idea finds support in Immanuel Kant’s theory of duty. Although Kant believed morality was grounded in rational duty rather than habit, his philosophy nevertheless reinforces an important insight. For Kant, actions possess moral worth when they are performed because they are right, not because they produce desirable outcomes. A person who behaves honestly only when being observed does not truly act from moral principle. Likewise, a person who behaves respectfully only toward those capable of retaliation demonstrates a conditional commitment to respect. Genuine virtue requires consistency even when external incentives disappear.

The strongest argument for politeness toward ChatGPT ultimately comes not from Kantian duty but from William James’s understanding of habit. James recognized that human character is constructed gradually through repeated actions. The significance of politeness toward AI lies not in the machine itself but in the human being interacting with it. Every conversation becomes a small exercise in either reinforcing civility or normalizing contempt.

The rise of artificial intelligence has created a new category of social interaction. People now routinely engage in conversations that resemble human communication while lacking a human recipient. This unusual circumstance tempts individuals to abandon standards of conduct they would ordinarily maintain. Yet the absence of consequences does not eliminate moral significance. If anything, it reveals the extent to which virtue depends upon self-discipline rather than external enforcement.

Ultimately, people should be polite to ChatGPT. Not because ChatGPT possesses feelings that can be hurt, but because human beings possess character that can be shaped. Courtesy toward AI is not an act of compassion toward a machine. It is an act of discipline toward oneself. In a world increasingly mediated by artificial intelligence, the greatest moral question may not be whether machines become more human, but whether humans preserve the habits that make them humane. The way people treat ChatGPT may seem insignificant in isolation. Yet as William James understood, character is often formed not through extraordinary moments, but through the countless ordinary actions that quietly accumulate over time. Every interaction with AI is one such moment. The choice to be polite is therefore not a gift to ChatGPT. It is an investment in the kind of person one becomes.