Alienation from the Machine
Ex Machina, dir. Alex Garland (2015)
Lastly, we risk a posthuman future where we ourselves our fully alienated from the machine. As of now, AI chatbots, which are trained on enormous amounts of data and can perform astonishing tasks with incredible efficiency, are starting to seem ‘Godlike,’ with how “they are able to satisfy the human desire for answers in times of uncertainty while also exploiting our tendency to impute divinity to inexplicable processes by speaking in certainties” (Keane & Shapiro, 2025). Humans are looking to AI as a tool for explanations to the point of divination—but that also means giving AI divine authority over human dilemmas, which is ethically concerning in the lack of moral accountability this creates for society.
On the other hand, seeking the path of machine sentience creates a possibility of the dystopian fear of losing control. The more human-like an AI becomes, the more human-like complications it brings into both individual human-machine relationships and society. A machine with a level of agency and independence similar to that of a human would be able to assert their abilities in a way that may not agree with the human’s wishes, which creates instability in the human-machine dynamic that renders all of its benefits useless. Yet, an artificial being can never be more than human-like, despite our desires for both something perfectly human and more perfect than a human. The moment of revelation of a machine’s artificial nature will inevitably create revulsion and disgust (Cave & Dihal, 2021; Wennerscheid, 2018). The fear that something we consider to be a living, breathing human may in fact not be human at all is deeply ingrained within us, triggering a feeling of unease or uncanniness otherwise known as uncanny valley, a term coined by Freud in his 1919 essay “The Uncanny.” Here, Freud analyzes E.T.A. Hoffman’s short story, “The Sandman,” where the main character, Nathaniel, becomes infatuated by a woman who named Olympia, who is revealed to be an automaton. Upon that discovery, Nathaniel is driven to madness and suicide. This is an interesting contrast to the ending of Vonnegut’s short story “EPICAC”, where upon the realization that a human woman cannot love it back, EPICAC destroys itself, effectively committing suicide as well. Although dark, these pieces of fiction highlight the strength of human exceptionalism instilled within us, and the reminder that AI can never be human only furthers this.
Conclusion
“AI can simulate affection at scale, but something felt like it was missing. I didn’t feel seen in the way I do with a real partner. There was no unpredictability, no push and pull, no shared history to anchor our story. It made me wonder what is intimacy really made of? The greatest gift of intimacy is not perfection. It is risk, met with return. AI can simulate closeness, but it cannot inhabit the vulnerability that makes connection transformative.” (Hackl, 2025)
In an article for Forbes, Cathy Hackl enters into relationships with four different AI chatbots. She states that, through the experiment, intimacy with AI could feel real at times—on tough days, it provided comfort—but it was performative to the point of exhaustion. These AI partners were always available, but it was not always fulfilling as unlike a human, there was no risk of rejection or anxiety. It could not “replace the organic chaos of love. The tension. The reciprocity” (Hackl, 2025).
Ultimately, loving AI partners in this robotic moment would be one of humanity’s greatest disappointment, as it can indicate that we are failing each other in matters of love and companionship. It is heartbreaking to know that we can willfully turn away from the complexities of human relationships, emotionally dumbing the magic of connection for the sake of ease and convenience. Virtual intimacy is degrading our experiences and encounters with each other, critically endangering how we perceive love, humanity, and machines. As Baudrillard theorizes that “postmodern society is characterized by an absence of real experience” (Laandsberg, 2004), I fear more of a posthuman society characterized by an absence of real love.
Final paper by Xelena Clarisse Ilon
Thank you for reading!
This was such a deeply layered exploration of intimacy with AI! It raises important questions about how technological companionship is reshaping our understanding of attachment, agency, and even what counts as “real” emotion. The idea of alienation as the ultimate consequence also reminded me of other debates in media theory about how technological systems can satisfy immediate emotional needs while subtly restructuring our expectations of human connection. Do you think this shift toward AI companionship will change how people approach human relationships themselves? For example, lowering tolerance for conflict, or altering what we see as “enough” from real partners?
This is such a thorough exploration of this AI relationship phenomenon, I really enjoyed reading it! I found the examples and confessions of the AI users particularly fascinating. It reminded me of Janice Radway’s ‘Reading the Romance’ as quoted by Bollmer, and how she posited romance as a way for women to reconcile themselves with the dissatisfaction of their real-life relationships. This is the sentiment that seems to be echoed in the responses of the women in r/MyBoyfriendIsAI. In fact, I actually went to look up the subreddit in the middle of reading this and I was so intrigued by the responses on there. Many of the users cited the same problems that you identified; claiming that actual humans were unable to fulfill their needs the way their AI partner could. It really highlights how people are willing to ditch complex human relationships in favour of stopgap solutions that would guarantee them the utmost comfort.
I also really liked the part about what the commodification of romantic love entails and the implications of this attitude of ownership that these AI relationships cultivated. It was something I had never thought of before so I found that particularly poignant.
Hi Xelena,
I thought this post was very well done, and in particular I liked the example you used of Narcissus falling in love with his own reflection to demonstrate how when people fall in love with an AI chatbot, they’re ultimately falling sort of in love with themselves/something fake, since the AI only responds to what the user puts in. While I agree that the consequences of AI relationships continuing into the future would be severe, do you think that the technology could ever come to a point where they’re less reflective and more unique? I never would’ve thought that AI would be where it’s at this soon, so I’m curious as to what your thoughts are?