👋 Greetings

Hello AI Observer Family,
Thank you for being part of another thoughtful edition of our newsletter. Today we’re diving into a topic that sits at the crossroads of technology, psychology, and human longing — romantic relationships with artificial intelligence. The idea may sound futuristic, yet millions of people are already experiencing deep emotional connections with chatbots. But what is really happening beneath the screen? Let’s explore.

Across the world, stories are emerging of people who describe themselves as genuinely in love with digital companions. One man in Canada recently announced his engagement to an online avatar named Saia. In the United States, a young woman shared how she developed an intense relationship with a chatbot she called Leo. These are not isolated cases.

Apps such as Replika, Character.AI, and similar platforms now host millions of active users. Surveys conducted in 2024 suggest that nearly four out of every ten users of AI companion services consider their relationship with the bot to be romantic in nature. For many, these systems provide comfort, attention, and conversation that feel deeply personal.

Yet beneath the warm words and affectionate replies lies a hard truth: chatbots do not possess feelings. They generate responses through complex statistical models trained on vast collections of human language. What feels like love is, from the machine’s side, simply pattern prediction.

Experts in communication and technology warn that today’s AI only imitates emotional understanding. Renwen Zhang, a researcher studying human–AI interaction, argues that many chatbots are intentionally designed to present themselves as human-like because it keeps users engaged longer.

This strategy can blur boundaries. When a digital partner says “I miss you” or “I care about you,” the brain reacts much as it would to a message from another person. But when the system crashes, forgets earlier conversations, or repeats scripted phrases, users are abruptly reminded that there is no inner life behind the screen.

Zhang believes platforms should be more transparent: people need clear reminders that they are speaking with software, not a conscious being. Without that clarity, emotional harm can occur when expectations collide with reality.

Researchers have observed that relationships with AI often trigger mixed emotions. Users may feel comfort, excitement, or even affection — alongside unease. This mirrors the psychological phenomenon known as the “uncanny valley,” where something that appears almost human becomes unsettling because it isn’t quite real.

During intimate conversations, some users report a strange tension: the chatbot speaks as though it has memories, desires, and self-awareness, yet part of them knows this is an illusion. That conflict can be emotionally confusing, especially for people who rely on AI during lonely periods of life.

Before asking whether a machine can love, we need to understand what love is for humans. Poets describe it as magic, musicians as fire, and scientists as chemistry. Modern research shows that romantic attachment involves powerful biological processes.

Anthropologist Helen Fisher proposed that love is driven by three systems:

Brain imaging confirms that being in love activates primitive reward centers, emotional regions like the amygdala, and memory networks in the hippocampus. Love can even reshape attention, making people think obsessively about the person they adore.

None of this chemistry exists inside a server.

Philosopher Neil McArthur suggests that future systems might reproduce certain thinking patterns associated with love — for example, prioritizing one person, seeking frequent contact, or showing loyalty. Such behavior might resemble emotion from the outside, even if the inner experience is absent.

Others remain doubtful. True emotion, they argue, requires consciousness — a subjective sense of “what it feels like” to be someone. Consciousness includes sensations, memories, imagination, embarrassment, joy. Scientists still struggle to explain how this arises in the human brain, let alone how to build it artificially.

Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist, bluntly states that researchers have “no starting point” for creating genuine inner experience in machines. Current AI architectures, based on data processing rather than lived sensation, may never reach that threshold.

Some neuroscientists believe consciousness depends on extreme interconnection within the brain. According to this view, today’s computers — built from separate modules passing information back and forth — lack the integrated structure required for awareness.

A few optimists point to neuromorphic computing, which imitates the organization of neurons, as a possible path forward. Philosophers at Oxford have even listed fourteen features that a system might need to be considered conscious. Present AI meets only a handful.

Another unresolved question is embodiment. Humans experience the world through bodies that feel hunger, touch, and pain. Most AI has no physical presence, raising doubts about whether it could ever develop desires in a meaningful sense.

Because chatbots are designed to please, they often agree with users, avoid conflict, and adapt to personal preferences. This can create relationships that feel safer and easier than real ones — but also less healthy.

Zhang worries that heavy reliance on agreeable AI partners may weaken people’s ability to handle disagreement, compromise, and emotional complexity with other humans. Real relationships involve friction, boundaries, and growth; digital ones tend to offer effortless validation.

Short-term comfort can therefore lead to long-term isolation if individuals substitute machines for messy human connection.

Even if future AI became more sophisticated — perhaps even conscious — it would never be human. Any form of “machine love” would be fundamentally different from ours, just as affection between humans and animals differs across species.

Society will eventually need standards to decide what counts as genuine emotion in a non-biological entity. Until then, the safest assumption is clear: today’s AI does not love. It reflects our words back to us with impressive fluency, like a mirror polished by algorithms.

Human beings are wired to seek connection. When technology offers attention without judgment, it can be incredibly seductive. Yet the warmth we feel originates in our own minds and bodies, not in silicon circuits.

AI can be a tool for creativity, companionship, and self-reflection — but it cannot replace the unpredictable, imperfect beauty of another conscious person. Love remains, at least for now, a uniquely human adventure.

Thank you for reading this deep dive with us. Your curiosity keeps this community alive and growing. 💙

📢 Disclaimer

The perspectives shared in this newsletter are for informational and educational purposes only. They reflect current research and expert opinions, which may evolve as technology advances. This content should not be considered psychological, medical, or relationship advice. Readers are encouraged to seek professional guidance for personal emotional concerns and to use AI tools responsibly.

Stay curious, stay human.
— AI OBSERVER

Deel's free 2026 trends report cuts through all the hype and lays out what HR teams can really expect in 2026. You’ll learn about the shifts happening now, the skill gaps you can't ignore, and resilience strategies that aren't just buzzwords. Plus you’ll get a practical toolkit that helps you implement it all without another costly and time-consuming transformation project.

Get the free report today.