AI on Falling in Love: A Potential Course

In the film, Wall-E (2008), a robot “falls in love” with another, whose anthropomorphic pronoun is she/her rather than it as is fitting for a machine. As a robot does not have genitalia, neither the masculine or feminine single pronoun applies, and because a robot is an entity, the plural pronouns also do not apply. Word-games aside, the more substantive and interesting matter of whether a robot, and even AI (i.e., machine learning), can (or could potentially) understand the phenomenological experience of falling in love, and, whether yes or no, be able beyond mere prediction to match couples who would fall in love were they to meet. A college course on these questions, especially with relevant films including Wall-E and The Matrix being assigned, would be incredibly popular and capable of tremendous mind-stretching. 

Such a college course could be entitled, “Falling in Love with AI,” “AI: Falling in Love” or “Falling in Love: AI.” Is it conceivable or possible that a computer with AI could fall in love, whether with a human or another such computer? Can AI (i.e., a computer capable of machine-learning) understand the phenomenology of falling in love beyond its mechanistic aspects, such as in a person being attracted to long hair. The aspect of “chemistry,” or a “vibe” in the experience of falling in love goes beyond the mechanistic aspects. By analogy, states in the E.U. and U.S. have residual sovereignty, which goes beyond the powers enumerated for both the states and the respective unions Falling in love has a residual that I contend cannot be captured, understood, “felt,” or even predicted by AI. The residual is inherently beyond machine-learning.

In the subfield of philosophy of mind, the question has been raised (by Daniel Dennett, I believe): Does the manipulation of symbols according to rules constitute understanding? A computer could have an algorithm that applies rules to Chinese characters, which are symbols, and outputs Chinese characters. For example, a computer can be used to answer a question. This does not mean that the computer understands the question, or what the characters mean.  A person who does not know any Chinese could do the same thing: apply rules to particular symbols (or arrangements thereof) to answer questions in Chinese. Clearly, this is not to understand the symbols and thus the question (or the answer). Similarly, a computer even with AI could “match” couples on the basis of the likelihood that they would fall in love, but this feat does not require or mean that the computer understands the phenomenon of falling in love or can fall in love.

Manipulating symbols according to algorithmic rules does not reach the phenomenological residual (i.e., the totality of the experience) of falling in love. To the extent that AI does or can potentially do more than manipulating symbols according to rules, which is beyond my ken, it remains to ask whether AI can or is capable of falling in love, and, furthermore, whether such functionality is requisite to AI being able to match, beyond prediction, people who would fall in love were they to meet. In other words, in the film, Wall-E, computers do so much for people, including providing food, but could robots be match-makers in being able to assess who would fall in love with whom. I contend that given the human condition of being human, computers are not capable, nor will they, of providing everything. It may be that humans will one day be able to marry and even love humanoids, but this does not mean that the seemingly-fleshy computers will be able to fall in love with us.

Koko the Gorilla Meets Mr. Rogers

Koko, a western lowland gorilla held in captivity, learned over 1,000 signs from American Sign Language, and achieved a "sophisticated understanding" of spoken English by the age of 44.[1] Research has uncovered, moreover, that "gorillas may be capable of complex vocal behavior that defies previous beliefs about their communicative abilities."[2] In other words, the species is able to have a spoken language. Even though humans branched off from chimpanzees rather than gorillas 7 million years ago (our own species, homo sapiens, began 1.8 million years ago), the findings are hardly surprising; after all, whales and dolphins communicate by making distinct sounds. Even so, the prospect of being able to carry on a "conversation" with a member of another species is astounding. Gorillas like Koko might one day be able to tell us what it is like to be a gorilla. Ironically, we might learn more about our own species in the process. 

Koko teaching Mr. Rogers, star of the children's learning show, "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood,"  the sign for love.

Koko can make the sign for love, but do her keepers know she means the same thing as we do? Do gorillas feel love as we do? It is possible that a gorilla using human sign language is merely manipulating symbols according to rules. If so, it could not be said that Koko understands love. Even if she intends to communicate love by its sign, she might have in mind the love that gorillas have, rather than what we experience as love. Watching her favorite film, she turned away when the parents were saying goodbye to their boy as he boarded a train. Koko signed that it was sad because the mother loves her son. It is possible that Koko was referring to the biological attachment that a mother gorilla has for her baby, rather than what we mean by love. Koko might have meant merely that the mother will miss her boy, rather that the mother feels a selfless love for her son. Of course, what we mean by love may turn out to be more biological and less godly than we conveniently suppose. 

Koko, a fan of the television show, "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood," expressing affection for the star. Mr. Rogers, on the other hand, seems weary of his fan, at least in his body language.

Moreover, the research being conducted on Koko and other gorillas in captivity may bring us one step closer to the realization that we are just one species among many others, rather than unique, as in being made in God's image. This is not to say that God does not exist, whether or not it coheres to the Western conceptions. Perhaps gorillas have a spiritual nature too; they may even have an idea roughly equivalent to ours for God (maybe Koko's god is similar to that of the Exodus). If not, theology may be a function of brain complexity. If gorillas could communicate to us a species-specific spirituality or idea of the divine, then we could put our own in perspective and thus see it in a refreshing light. Perhaps we might find that our religions are human, all too human.[3]

In short, learning more about how gorillas communicate, and teaching those like Koko more human language can potentially increase our knowledge of what it is like to be another species. Even though Koko has a sophisticated knowledge of English and the use of a thousand signs, language would have to be capable of transmitting what it is like to be a gorilla or human. 

1. Carolyn Gregoire, "Apes May Be Much Closer to Human Speech Than We Realized," The Huffington Post, August 15, 2015.
2. Ibid.
3. "Human, All Too Human" is the title of one of Friedrich Nietzsche's books, but I have in mind David Hume's theory of religion. See his "The Natural History of Religion" for his account of how the human brain "translates" religion into distinctly human terms. See also the last chapter of my book, "God's Gold."