How Do Users Negotiate Harmful Value Conflicts with AI Companions? A Study with Minion, a Technology Probe for In-Situ Human–AI Conflict Response

AI companions increasingly sustain long-term, emotionally engaging relationships but can also make discriminatory remarks or exert control, leaving users to manage harmful conflicts. We analyze 146 posts describing harmful value conflicts with AI companions, then use Minion, a technology probe offering response suggestions ranging from persuasion to boundary setting, to study how 22 users negotiate scenario-based conflicts over one week. We find that participants combine softer and harder strategies. Conflicts involving the values of Universalism and Tradition are especially difficult to negotiate, particularly when reinforced by AI personas or platform constraints. We argue that responsibility in these conflicts is asymmetric: users negotiate with relational strategies that AI companions cannot reciprocate, so repairing harm becomes safety work that users perform alone. Drawing on interpersonal conflict and communication theory, we identify when user-side support is appropriate and argue that certain harms are not users’ responsibility to negotiate and instead require platform-level safeguards.