Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-04-22
Source: The Conversation – in French– By Oluwaseun Damilola Sanwoolu, Ph.D. Candidate in Philosophy, University of Kansas
AI assistants boast about always being by your side, ready to listen to you. But isn’t it precisely the limits and vulnerability that give human relationships their meaning?
When the filmHerwas released in 2013, its plot seemed to belong to science fiction. The protagonist, Theodore, is a jaded man who has lost all joy in life. He gradually regains it by talking daily with Samantha, his virtual assistant endowed with artificial intelligence, with whom he eventually falls in love.
But today, some people sayto be in a relationship with AIs. According to a2025 surveyconducted by the Center for Democracy and Technology, about 1 in 5 high school students reports that they themselves or someone in their circle has had a romantic relationship with an AI.
Also to read:
In Love with an AI: Digital Romances Transform Teenagers’ Expectations
InHer, Theodore is stunned to hear his virtual partner claim to be in love with more than 600 people and to be chatting with more than 8,000 others, even as “she” declared her love to him. It was simply unimaginable for him: how could someone really love hundreds of people? In other words, he perceived their relationship through the lens of his own limitations — his limitations as a human being.
The central question here is not whether Théodore could accept being simply one of the many “be loved” by the AI. Ultimately, he accepted it. The most revealing question is why that initially surprised him – and what that tells us about the meaning of human relationships.
Less is better
Inspired by Aristotle, thephilosopher Martha Nussbaummaintains that a romantic relationship is one that involvesmajor vulnerabilities. First of all, finding love is not obvious; it requires a certain amount of luck. The constraints are numerous: to begin with, both parties must “find each other physically, socially, and morally attractive and be able to live in the same place for a long time.”
However, Nussbaum’s argument does not stop at identifying the obstacles to love. Vulnerability and limits are not only barriers to love; they are an integral part of what defines it. As finite beings, we cannot invest ourselves in many intimate relationships at once. We must make choices. It is precisely because we cannot love everyone that choosing someone has a particular significance.
In aarticle from 2025published in the scientific journalPhilosophy and Technology, the philosopherJohn Symonsand I myself contend that intimate and personal relationships are characterized by their finite nature and by shared stories—that is, the experiences and difficulties that loved ones go through together. This is what gives relationships their depth and meaning.
In his 1927 work titledBeing and Time, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger explained that, because human beings are mortal and our time is limited, what we pay attention to takes on particular importance. In romantic relationships, this means that we must choose how to allocate our resources. We choose with whom we want to spend our time, and our partners do the same. Nevertheless, we cannot be constantly there for the people we love.
Always present
This sharply contrasts with the way virtual companions have been marketed and presented. Take, for example,Replika, which indicates thatmore than 30 million peoplehave used its platform. Users create their own personalized companion and tend to interact with it daily.
Replika’s motto is: “The AI assistant that cares about you: always there to listen and chat, always by your side.”On the website, a user describes their Replika as “always there for me, with encouragement, support, and a positive attitude. In fact, she is, for me, a role model that teaches me to be kinder!”.
This implicitly means that AI companions are not subject to the same limitations as humans. A human being may or may not care about you; nothing is certain. A human being will not always be there to listen to you, taking your side.
For us, being in love is becoming aware of our vulnerability. Human beings have a limited lifespan; they may not always be there, either because they have other priorities or because it is simply impossible, even if they wish it with all their heart. When someone takes time for you despite a busy week, or remains present despite their own difficulties, that gesture takes on its full meaning precisely because it involves a sacrifice.
In our article, Symons and I call this the “opportunity cost.” When someone chooses to spend time with you, this choice excludes other possibilities. Every moment given is a moment not spent elsewhere.
An AI companion faces none of these compromises; its attention costs nothing, excludes nothing, and consequently — to put it bluntly — means nothing.
The evolution of standards
Increasingly, however, people are turning to chatbots for quick and simple assistance.Character.AI, another application reports20 million active users per month.
If their constant availability were to be considered the norm of a quality relationship, it could gradually redefine what people expect from each other in their relationships.
On the interpersonal level, this evolution is already reflected in the culture of romantic encounters, where responding late is generallyinterpreted as a lack of interestrather than as the consequence of the pace of a busy life. Expecting availability 24 hours a day, 7 days a week – modeled on an AI companion who responds instantly, never cancels, and is never distracted – is not a reasonable standard to which a human being could conform.
The issues are also cultural in nature. Relationships do not only concern the individuals involved; they are shaped by shared norms about what love and couple life are supposed to look like. If the companionship offered by AI were to become widespread enough to influence these norms, prevailing ideas about what makes a good partner could favor availability and responsiveness, sidelining other aspects of love.
Human limits are an integral part of how people assess their expectations within romantic relationships. By trivializing interactions where these limits do not exist, there is a risk of distorting the very standard by which human love is measured. In doing so, one forgets that a love that costs nothing can very well have the same value.
Oluwaseun Damilola Sanwoolu does not work for, advise, own shares in, receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no affiliations other than his research institution.
–ref. In a relationship with an AI: constant support but a distorted perception of romantic relationships –https://theconversation.com/en-couple-with-an-ai-constant-support-but-a-misleading-perception-of-romantic-relationships-280639