To be honest, the alternative for a good chunk of these users is no interaction at all, and that sort of isolation doesn't prepare you for human interaction either.
This sounds like an argument in favor of safe injection sites for heroin users.
So too is our society unable to do what's necessary to reduce the startling alienation happening (halt suburban hyperspread, reduce working hours to give more leisure time, give workers ownership of the means of production so as to eliminate alienation from labor), so, ai girlfriends and boyfriends for the lonely NEETs. Bonus, maybe it'll reduce school shootings.
Using AI to fulfill a need implies a need which usually results in action towards that need. Even "the dating scene is terrible" is human interaction.
For some subset of people, this isn't true. Some people don't end up going on a single date or get a single match. And even for those who get a non-zero number there, that number might still be hovering around 1-2 matches a year and no actual dates.
I am not even talking dates BTW but the pre-cursors to dates.
If you bring up Tinder etc then I would point out that AI has been doing bad things for quite a while obviously.
I still don't think an AI partner is a good solution, but you are seriously underestimating how bad the status quo is.
For some people, yes, but 99% of those people are men. The whole "women with AI boyfriends" thing is an entirely different issue.
AI in these cases is just a better 'litter of 50 cats', a better, less-destructive, less-suffering-creating fantasy.
This is true if the alternative to “any interaction” is “no interaction”. Bots alter this, and provide “good interaction”.
In this light, the case for relationship bots is quite strong.