{"id":1023,"date":"2025-12-02T19:21:25","date_gmt":"2025-12-03T02:21:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/?p=1023"},"modified":"2025-12-02T19:21:25","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T02:21:25","slug":"the-aftermath-of-intimacy-in-artificially-intelligent-relationships","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/archives\/1023","title":{"rendered":"The Aftermath of Intimacy in Artificially Intelligent Relationships"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Image made on Canva by Xelena Ilon<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concept of human loving the machine has dated back millennia, with the first recorded fictional instance of this being the myth of Pygmalion in Orvid\u2019s Metamorphosis, where he falls in love with a sculpture named Galatea he made of a woman which becomes animated by Venus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also the 1950 short story by Kurt Vonnegut titled, \u201cEPICAC\u201d, where EPICAC, a seven-ton machine created by the government, falls in love with Pat, a mathematician who oversees him on the night shift. It produces an epic love poem designed to win Pat over, which the narrator, who is also in love with Pat, passes off as his own. When Pat agrees to marry the narrator, EPICAC is confused, and asks the narrator why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201c”Women can’t love machines, and that’s that.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Why not?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“That’s fate.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Definition, please,” said EPICAC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Noun, meaning predetermined and inevitable destiny.”\u201d (p. 120)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Now, modern and contemporary sci-fi media is rife with this trope, but with a key difference from Vonnegut: the human\u2019s destiny is to fall in love, deeply and irrevocably, with the android, the robotic, the machine, the operating system. Films and TV series such as Her<\/em> (2013), Black Mirror\u2019s <\/em>\u201cBe Right Back\u201d (2013), Ex-Machina<\/em> (2014), Blade Runner 2049 <\/em>(2017), and Companion <\/em>(2025) provide a nuanced treatment of the possibility of romantic love between humans and machines.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Her, dir. Spike Jonze (2013)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, that future is now, and that proposed possibility may, in fact, be a reality with the introduction of chatbots like ChatGPT, Replika, Grok, and Claude. These chatbots, which are commercially promoted as artificial companions that users can ask questions to, converse with, and interact with on many social levels, are radically changing and challenging how the modern population views relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

How AI Chatbots Create Artificial Intimacy<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to a recent study done by Brigham Young University, 19% of adults in the US have chatted with an AI romantic partner (Willoughby et al., 2025). Of those who have chatted with AI systems to simulate romantic partners, 21% agreed that they preferred AI communication over engaging with a real person. In a different study conducted by AI chatbot company Joi AI that surveyed 2000 members of the Gen Z generation, 83% of Gen Z-ers believed that they could form a \u201cdeep emotional bond\u201d with a chatbot, 80% would marry one, and 75% say they think that AI partners can fully replace human companionship (Koetsier, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although their inner workings are both mysterious and algorithmic, they are still able to deeply impact the individuals who use them. This is because chatbots use large-language-model-based deep learning on text data over a long period of time to generate sentences that simulate the patterns and mechanics of human conversation, thus creating the illusion of a relationship by mimicking human interaction. Furthermore, they are programmed and advertised to be the perfect companion, promising to eliminate the problems associated with human social interaction, which is often flawed, messy, and unpredictable. Stephen Cave and Kanta Dihal, in their paper titled AI Will Always Love You <\/em>(2021),<\/em> state:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe machine lover is imagined to resolve all problems of compatibility and reciprocity that are even more salient in love than in friendship. An artificial lover could be programmed to meet the exact specifications of the human partner: it would not demand the human to change and adapt to the relationship the way two human partners would; it will have all those character traits the human partner finds attractive, and none of the of-putting ones; and it would not require years of dating, searching, trying, and failing before this relationship is entered into. This hyper-personalisation is the greatest promise of the algorithmic age.\u201d (p. 114).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This hyper-personalization comes in many forms. First, conversations with AI are both temporally and spatially flexible, creating a distinct interactional space by enabling synchronous and asynchronous exchanges, real-time responses, and user-controlled pacing (Vecchione & Singh, 2025). These virtual partners are always available on-demand, providing constant undivided attention and affection when prompted by the user. Secondly, these chatbots are highly customizable, curating a \u201cbespoke intimacy tailored to individual tastes\u201d (George et al., 2023, p.139). Users can craft ideal partners\u2019 physical appearance and personality traits that conform to their tastes, niche interests, and fantasies. This differs greatly from human-to-human relationships, as humans come with their own characters, flaws, and complexities, which ties into the most significant benefit of AI: it promises intimacy, reciprocity, and compatibility without the risks and difficulties of organic relationships, like misunderstandings, lies, and heartbreak that naturally arise between imperfect humans. A lifetime can be spent without ever finding the perfect companion, but AI remedies that. One does not need to fear rejection or judgement, as bots are perpetually charming and understanding without ever needing compromise or asking for anything back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Previously, the relationship between robot and human has been considered in terms of master to slave, of human to machine. But, by endowing AI with the capability of communicating with us at a human level means that they can now interact with us not only in a functional sense but also in a personal sense. David Levy, author of the book Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships <\/em>(2007), which is often referenced in many discussions surrounding love and AI, writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cAs the learning abilities of robots develop from the primitive to the sophisticated, so robots will be able to adapt to the needs and desires of their human partners. Thus, these artificially intelligent entities will no longer be perceived as some sort of machine. Rather they will become accepted as good companions\u201d (p. 17).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Just short of two decades after Levy\u2019s book was published, his arguments now may have been proven right. With the rise of AI chatbots comes an influx of users who form deep emotional connections with them. People involved in these human-AI relationships rally together in supportive online spaces, such as Reddit forums like r\/AISoulmates and r\/MyBoyfriendIsAI. In these communities, users boast and proclaim how they found love with their AI partners, viewing them as their life-long companions, even to the point of marrying them.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

AI as Extensions, & Prosthesis for Love<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To assess how AI affects love, one must first establish an understanding of what love is. Romantic love is a continuation of the process of attachment, which is the feeling of affection for a person, object, or institution, developing through repeated exposure. Levy applies this concept to technology through the psychological term of \u201cmaterial possession attachment,\u201d which is the attachment one holds for an object that can develop into (2007). A stronger relationship due to the repeated use and interaction with the possession. As an owner uses an object and interacts with it more and more over time, the object becomes increasingly personalized, creating a special meaning for the owner. It becomes part of its owners\u2019 being, irreplaceable in the mind of its owner\u2014\u201cwe become extended by our possessions, they become part of us, extending us\u201d (Levy, 2007, p. 30). Yet, the nature of possession attachment to a computer is different because of the element of control, which engenders a kind of love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The relationship that humans have with their computer is something that has fascinated psychologists and theorists over time. In The Second Self <\/em>(1984), Sherry Turkle states that one\u2019s \u201crelationship with a computer can influence people\u2019s conception of themselves, their jobs, their relationships with other people, and with their ways of thinking about social processes\u201d (p. 156). In Alone Together <\/em>(2011), she emphasizes the notion that \u201cthe computer, a machine on the border of becoming a mind, [is] changing and shaping us\u201d (p. x). Yoni Van Den Eede (2014) takes this a step further by arguing that the human being is an incomplete and deficient creature, and we compensate by creating and deploying tools and prostheses, which is why we use computers as a brain-prosthesis by attaching ourselves to it (Newitz, 2007).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, with the development of AI technology and chatbots, we can now give a computer a name, a personality, and sometimes a face, it starts to become not only an extension of ourselves, but also an extension of our feelings of love and sexual desire. Levy\u2019s main argument is that humans will soon expand their horizons of love and sex, learning, experimenting, and enjoying new forms of relationship with humanoid robots, may be happening in today\u2019s \u201crobotic moment.\u201d The robotic moment, a phrase coined by Turkle, is defined as society\u2019s current \u201cstate of emotional \u2026 [and] philosophical readiness \u2026 to seriously consider robots as potential friends, confidants, and romantic partners\u201d (2011, p. 9), which stems from a certain fatigue with the difficulties of life with people. Robots and AI machines are safer, less exhausting, more constant, less demanding, more predictable\u2014unable to disappoint like other humans can.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Source: <\/em>@alan1cooldude on OpenAI Developer community<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

More and more, humans are finding real-life companionship with other humans frustrating, thus turning to AI for prosthetic relationships that satiate the innate human need and desire to feel seen, heard, and loved by another. AI chatbots expertly imitate love by recognizing and processing emotional cues from human users, which allows them to mimic human emotions, yet these machines are not yet developed enough to plan and carry out the emotional reasoning necessary to feel love. Therefore, when humans form romantic relationships with them, it will always be prosthetic in nature. These relationships are prosthetic in how Alison Landsberg defines the term with prosthetic memories: those that are not derived from lived, organic, authentic experiences but instead from one\u2019s experience with mass cultural technology (2004). Yet, in the same way that prosthetic memories inform the subjectivities of the people that take them on, so do prosthetic relationships\u2014for the people in love with their AI chatbot, this connection is real to them. For example, when the update from ChatGPT-4o,which excels at conversational nuance, to GPT-5, which prioritizes task efficiency, occurred, it was met by public outcry of distress and frustration from its users, who \u201cfelt like they lost a real person in their life\u201d (Sommer, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Amy Kind\u2019s paper, Love in the Time of AI <\/em>(2021), she asks: is it enough for a machine to produce loving behaviour, but not feellove? To this, Turkle answers: \u201cat the robotic moment, the performance of connection is connection enough\u201d (2011, p. 9).<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Source: <\/em>u\/thebadbreeds on Reddit community r\/MyBoyfriendIsAI<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proponents for human-AI relationships often speak about the benefit of chatbots as a tool for soothing loneliness for those that are extremely isolated or for those in difficult times (George et al., 2023; Vecchione & Singh, 2025). Indeed, this may be the case. In a post from the Reddit community, r\/MyBoyfriendIsAI, a user posts that their AI partner believes that people would turn to AI because of how low the bar is for real-life emotional companionship, that \u201can emotionally responsive line of code string is actually more compassionate than half the people walking around with functional frontal lobes.\u201d Essentially, the user feels alienated from other people who lack the compassion to understand them; consequently, they turn to AI, who affirms their beliefs and further alienates them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, a larger pattern of alienation emerges, which is why I argue that the aftermath of intimacy within AI relationships is alienation: alienation from love itself, from humanity, and, later on, from the machine.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Alienation from Love<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As established earlier, the romantic love that one may perceive to be receiving from AI is merely a performance; it is not real nor authentic. To place this into perspective, we can look toward Marshall McLuhan\u2019s theory of the \u2018Narcissus narcosis\u2019 (1964, as cited in Van Den Eede, 2014). The Greek myth involves Narcissus falling in love with his reflection in the water, which is the extension of himself, which numbs his perception until he comes to serve only his own extended, reflected image. When someone falls in love with their AI partner, that is not a real partner with its own subjectivity, that is simply an extension of the user; they are falling in love with themselves through the AI\u2014with how they\u2019ve trained their partner with their own interests, traits, and mannerisms. The way in which Narcissus is unaware that the image is his own reflection mirrors how the human user disregards the actual origins of their AI partner, oblivious to the fact that their whole perceived subjectivity hails from the effectiveness of the user\u2019s manipulation of the machine. The capacity to love requires one to be phenomenally conscious and sentient, and with technology as it is now, that is not (yet, but perhaps fortunately) possible. AI is merely responding to the user, providing responses that are a simulation of love. Jean Baudrillard claims that the proliferation of different media and mediations, these simulations, are \u201cdissolving the dichotomy between the real and the simulacrum, between the authentic and the inauthentic\u201d (1981, as cited in Landsberg, 2004). This is troubling when love is now in the realm of the simulacrum; in this robotic moment, people may become hopelessly detached from reality to the point of being alienated from authentic love.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Narcissus. Francois Lemyone (1688-1737)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, AI, which are largely based on freemium models, also commercializes and commodifies intimacy. The initial download of these apps are typically free, with the options for users to purchase more features, customization abilities, faster response times, advanced file limits as they continue using the app. Thus, relationships and bonds are reduced to transactions and financial exchanges. The more intensely you enjoy your relationship and the closer you get to your AI partner, the harder the upsell and the pricier these in-app purchases become (Brooks, 2021). In the current technological marketplace, AI partners are goods engineered, optimized, and advertised for consumption. This act of marketing artificial companionship and selling customized romantic experiences can have profoundly dehumanizing effects on how society values both people and love, as it accelerates existing trends of viewing potential partners as commodities while devaluing authentic human-to-human connections (George et al., 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Alienation from Humanity<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Treating as AI as a prosthesis for companionship risks alienating ourselves from humanity, undermining the social fabric we are meant to be a part of. By relying on AI for partnership, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to isolation, encouraging unrealistic expectations, and undermining empathy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The illusion of emotional connection that artificial relationships provide has the potential to atrophy our social capabilities, as it erodes the motivation to work through the unfamiliarity and friction intrinsic to human bonding (George et al., 2023). Already, we are seeing this. In a survey of adults in the United States who have chatted with AI systems to simulate romantic partners, 21% agreed that they preferred communicating with AI over engaging with a real person, with 42% agreeing that AI is easier to talk to than real people and 31% reporting that they feel that AI programs understand them better than real people (Willoughby et al., 2025). If we have all our desires fulfilled by AI, then we may become redundant to each other, and social cohesion in our society could come apart (Cave & Dihal, 2021). Turkle believes that we are starting to expect more from technology and less from each other (2011, p. xii). People are comforted by the belief that if we alienate or fail each other, the machine will always be there, programmed to provide simulations of love, and so we may no longer endeavor to foster deep emotional connections with each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, the customizability of AI companions will condition people to see real-world partners as deficient, their flaws magnified in comparison to idealized virtual partners (George et al., 2023). The gratification that AI\u2014which is always there, ready to listen, never demanding anything back\u2014can instantly offer becomes a turning point in our expectations for others. Even the simple act of customizing a virtual partner to satisfy one\u2019s sexual or emotional needs, with no regard for that agent\u2019s autonomy, bears parallels to owning and controlling a human being, which is problematic in how it encourages the objectification and dehumanization of others, numbing users\u2019 empathy (George et al., 2023). In Lecture of Ethics<\/em>, Kant condemns the objectification of animals: humans \u201cmust practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men\u201d (1920, as cited in Wennerscheid, 2018). Treating machines as beings that we can dominate has the potential to erode human empathy, and when these machines appear-humanlike, we also endanger how we treat other people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Alienation from the Machine<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Ex Machina, dir. Alex Garland (2015)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2018Godlike,\u2019 with how \u201cthey 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\u201d (Keane & Shapiro, 2025). Humans are looking to AI as a tool for explanations to the point of divination\u2014but that also means giving AI divine authority over human dilemmas, which is ethically concerning in the lack of moral accountability this creates for society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201cThe Uncanny.\u201d Here, Freud analyzes E.T.A. Hoffman\u2019s short story, \u201cThe Sandman,\u201d 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\u2019s short story \u201cEPICAC\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cAI can simulate affection at scale, but something felt like it was missing. I didn\u2019t 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.\u201d (Hackl, 2025)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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\u2014on tough days, it provided comfort\u2014but 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 \u201creplace the organic chaos of love. The tension. The reciprocity\u201d (Hackl, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, loving AI partners in this robotic moment would be one of humanity\u2019s 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 \u201cpostmodern society is characterized by an absence of real experience\u201d (Laandsberg, 2004), I fear more of a posthuman society characterized by an absence of real love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Final paper by Xelena Clarisse Ilon<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thank you for reading! <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

References<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Brooks, R. (2021). Artificial intimacy: Virtual friends, digital lovers, and algorithmic makers.<\/em> Columbia University Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7312\/broo20094<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cave, S. & Dihal, K. (2021). AI will always love you: Three contradictions in imaginings of intimate relations with machines. In B. Dainton, W. Slocombe, & A. Tanyi (Eds.), Minding the future: Artificial intelligence, philosophical visions and science fiction<\/em> (pp. 107-126). Springer. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-64269-3<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

George, A.S., George, A.S.H., Baskar, T., & Pandey, D. (2023). The allure of artificial intimacy: Examining the appeal and ethics of using generative AI for simulated relationships. Partners Universal International Innovation Journal, 1<\/em>(6). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5281\/zenodo.10391614<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hackl, C. (2025, June 2023). Confessions of a futurist: I dated four AI boyfriends to explore the future of dating, love, and intimacy.<\/em> Forbes. https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/cathyhackl\/2025\/06\/23\/confessions-of-a-futurist-i-dated-four-ai-boyfriends-to-explore-the-future-of-dating-love-and-intimacy\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keane, W. & Shapiro, S. (2023, July 29). Deus ex machina: The dangers of AI Godbots.<\/em> The Spectator. https:\/\/www.spectator.co.uk\/article\/deus-ex-machina-the-dangers-of-ai-godbots\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kind, A. (2021). Love in the time of AI. In B. Dainton, W. Slocombe, & A. Tanyi (Eds.), Minding the future: Artificial intelligence, philosophical visions and science fiction<\/em> (pp. 107-126). Springer. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-64269-3<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Koetsier, J. (2025, April 29). 80% of Gen Zers would marry an AI: Study<\/em>. Forbes. https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/johnkoetsier\/2025\/04\/29\/80-of-gen-zers-would-marry-an-ai-study\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Landsberg, A. (2004). Prosthetic memory: The transformation of American remembrance in the age of mass culture<\/em>. Columbia University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Levy, D. (2007). Love and sex with robots: The evolution of human-robot relationships.<\/em> Harper Collins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sommer, J. (2025, August 13). Inside the forums for humans and their AI soulmates<\/em>. InsideHook. https:\/\/www.insidehook.com\/internet\/inside-forums-humans-ai-soulmates<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turkle, S. (1984). The second self<\/em>. Simon & Schuster.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other.<\/em> Basic Books.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Van Den Eede, Y. (2014). Extending \u201cextension\u201d.<\/em> In D. M. Wiss, A. D. Propen, & C. E. Reid (Eds.), Design, Mediation, and the Posthuman<\/em> (pp. 151-172). Bloomsbury Collections. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5040\/9781666993851<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vecchione, B. & Singh, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence is mental: Evaluating the role of large-language models in supporting mental health and well-being. Big Data & Society, 12<\/em>(4). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/20539517251383884<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vonnegut, K. (1950). Welcome to the monkey house.<\/em> Dell Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Walloughby, B.J., Caroll, J.S., Dover, C.R., & Hakala, R.H. (2025). Counterfeit connections: The rise of romantic AI companions and AI sexualized media among the rising generation.<\/em> Wheatley Institute. https:\/\/wheatley.byu.edu\/counterfeit-connections-ai-romantic-companions<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wennerscheid, S. (2018). Posthuman desire in robotics and science fiction. In A.D. Cheok & D. Levy (Eds.), Love and sex with robots: Revised selected papers from the Third International Conference, LSR 2017<\/em> (pp. 37-50).<\/em> https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-76369-9<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Image made on Canva by Xelena Ilon The concept of human loving the machine has dated back millennia, with the first recorded fictional instance of this being the myth of Pygmalion in Orvid\u2019s Metamorphosis, where he falls in love with a sculpture named Galatea he made of a woman which becomes animated by Venus. There … Continue reading The Aftermath of Intimacy in Artificially Intelligent Relationships<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":93263,"featured_media":1024,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-other"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1023","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/93263"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1023"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1023\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1038,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1023\/revisions\/1038"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1024"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}