AI toys: Investigating the impact on children's playtime

Letters to Santa are taking a tech-savvy turn. Alongside traditional gifts like dolls, action figures, and board games, children are now asking for toys powered by artificial intelligence. Curio offers voice-responsive plush toys, including Grok, voiced by the musician Grimes, capable of engaging in real-time conversations during playtime. In stores like Walmart, Miko, an AI robot, entertains children with jokes, yoga routines, and even monitors emotions to adapt to a childs mood. Mattel is exploring AI integration for Barbie through a partnership with OpenAI, signaling a shift toward interactive, intelligent playthings.

Not all experiments have been smooth. Kumma, an AI-enabled teddy bear, was pulled from the market after concerns arose regarding inappropriate content, highlighting both the promise and potential risks of these toys. The debate centers on whether AI toys offer a meaningful alternative to screen-based entertainment or if they present challenges that parents should carefully consider.

Emily Goodacre, a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Research on Play in Education, Development, and Learning at the University of Cambridge, is investigating these questions. She and her team, led by Professor Jenny Gibson, focus on how AI toys might impact children differently depending on their socioeconomic background. They explore whether such toys benefit or hinder development and how they may compete with traditional favorites like stuffed animals.

In collaboration with the Childhood Trust, a charity tackling child poverty, Goodacres research examines AI toys in the context of disadvantaged children. Her team gathers insights from early childhood professionals, parents, and children themselves, observing interactions to understand play patterns and potential developmental effects.

The toys come in diverse forms: robotic-like devices, AI modules that attach to existing stuffed animals, or app-connected companions. While these toys claim to support social skills and learning, Goodacre emphasizes that these marketing messages are not yet backed by scientific evidence.

Key considerations include the influence of AI responses on play, attention spans, and the nature of social interactions. Teachers have raised concerns that AI toys may replace real human interaction, offering automatic agreement rather than negotiation, which could shape social learning differently.

Privacy is another important issue. Some AI toys, like those in Goodacres study, retain conversation transcripts for a limited period and allow parental oversight. Families must consider whether children understand that their interactions are recorded and potentially shared, and how this affects trust and safety.

Early childhood is a critical period, making the impact of AI toys especially significant. While supervised play may mitigate risks, forming attachments to AI companions could have unforeseen consequences compared with traditional toys.

Parents are drawn to AI toys for various reasons: curiosity, avoiding screens, or pressure to provide innovative play experiences. Goodacre points out that AI toys can complement family interactions if used collaboratively, rather than solely for solitary entertainment.

Ultimately, AI toys are not inherently harmful. They offer opportunities for literacy in AI, engagement, and shared play, but families must consider how these devices fit into their home dynamics and developmental goals. As with previous technological innovations like social media, the long-term effects of generative AI toys remain to be fully understood, and unintended consequences may emerge over time.

Author: Sophia Brooks