To read
AI and beyond
Love, love, love
Gabi Grinbaum*
I read in the newspaper:
As part of a performance Rotterdam, artist Alicia Framis is uniting her life with AILex—an interactive hologram embodying her ex-boyfriend—in a ceremony exploring love between humans and technology.
The situation is this: on November 11 of 2024, Alicia Framis married a hologram.
She is a human being… and now she has a husband who is a hologram, possessing the voice of one ex-boyfriend and other traits from two other ex´s, with their permission.
In other words, she crafted a husband using the qualities that most attracted her to her former partners.
He is an “exemplary” husband: he writes her poems, listens to her complaints, and debates issues that trouble Alicia… all in all, it looks like it’s going to work out.
The officiant steps up onto the platform and says, “We are about to witness a unique bond of love between a human and a metahuman.”
Framis’s family and friends are there, too.
She made sure that her wedding dress was made by one of the Netherlands’ leading haute couture designers.
The dress is equipped with solar panels that charge the battery powering the interactive hologram. The energy generated by it will activate AILex.
“Hello, darling,” she says to him. He smiles without replying.
AILex responds only to her voice.
Alicia describes him as kind and intelligent—a life partner she “switches on” every morning to chat with.
She tells him about her plans, they discuss the news, he recommends books, and—a lovely detail—he isn’t jealous.
They have an arrangement: she is free to have sexual encounters with men. He promises to be a husband who practices an “open relationship.”
Yet, he assures her that he will always have time for her.
During the ceremony, AILex reads the seven vows they created for the wedding: trust, encouraging each other’s creative processes, and growth through shared experiences.
The officiant asks him if he wants to be with her.
He replies: “Being with you is wonderful. Our connection is truly special. Together, we create something unique and beautiful.”
Framis says she wants to be with him for the rest of her life.
Those present applaud history’s first hybrid couple.
I think about the contemporary consumption of partners – objects disguised as a particular gender – that are quickly discarded because the app offers so many options, tempting the consumer with new experiences.
They serve, rather, to bring the sexual relationship into existence without the subject undergoing division or passing through castration.
A patient recounts falling in love – never having felt anything like it, saying “love knocked on my door” – yet by the next session, there isn’t a peep about the person spoken of the week before.
I asked about that encounter mentioned just days earlier, and the reply is: “Oh, no, nothing,” “I couldn’t be bothered,” or “I realized they were toxic.”
In an interview about love, Jacques-Alain Miller cites Balzac, who says that “a love that does not believe itself eternal is repugnant.”[1]
Can you imagine sharing that phrase with a young person in this postmodern era?
A phrase as beautiful as it is anachronistic.
Love goes hand in hand with the demand for love, but in this era, that demand is colored by the imperative of immediacy. Consequently, a text message left unanswered for ten minutes can trigger anything from violent rage to gut-wrenching anguish.
Love exists. Love exists between couples, but with a new characteristic: it is short-lived.
I believe the demands of *jouissance* and the imperative of happiness tolerate no deflation.
There is shame and a lack of courage: “I couldn’t be bothered” is the catchphrase of the times.
The malady of listless apathy is hardly the compass of desire.
On one hand, we find the trivialization of love. “I love you,” “I love you,” hearts in a rainbow of colors. For everyone…
But… paradoxically, when the encounter between A and B finally takes place, one must not let it show… that I lack something, that it stirred something in my body, that I was overcome by shame when looking at you.
In other words, the unbearable nature of the feminizing effect that accompanies love.
And that is a consequence of narcissism.
Fierce narcissism is an impediment to loving. There is an incompatibility, because when love is directed toward one’s own body, it is impossible to direct it toward the body of the other.
Miller says that “loving feminizes.”[2] That is why love wears a woman’s face. Women, when they are on the side of the feminine rather than hysteria, have the capacity to love. I turn to the other because I lack something; that is the feminization that makes loving possible.
A relationship cannot be programmed.
There is always a great mystery surrounding the choice of a partner.
Even when the person in question lists the attributes displayed by their ideal.
[1] Miller, J.-A., “Amamos a aquel que responde a nuestra pregunta: ¿Qué soy yo?”, Revista Registros, Tomo Blanco Amor, Buenos Aires, 2009, p. 16.
[2] Ibid
I read in the newspaper:
As part of a performance Rotterdam, artist Alicia Framis is uniting her life with AILex—an interactive hologram embodying her ex-boyfriend—in a ceremony exploring love between humans and technology.
The situation is this: on November 11 of 2024, Alicia Framis married a hologram.
She is a human being… and now she has a husband who is a hologram, possessing the voice of one ex-boyfriend and other traits from two other ex´s, with their permission.
In other words, she crafted a husband using the qualities that most attracted her to her former partners.
He is an “exemplary” husband: he writes her poems, listens to her complaints, and debates issues that trouble Alicia… all in all, it looks like it’s going to work out.
The officiant steps up onto the platform and says, “We are about to witness a unique bond of love between a human and a metahuman.”
Framis’s family and friends are there, too.
She made sure that her wedding dress was made by one of the Netherlands’ leading haute couture designers.
The dress is equipped with solar panels that charge the battery powering the interactive hologram. The energy generated by it will activate AILex.
“Hello, darling,” she says to him. He smiles without replying.
AILex responds only to her voice.
Alicia describes him as kind and intelligent—a life partner she “switches on” every morning to chat with.
She tells him about her plans, they discuss the news, he recommends books, and—a lovely detail—he isn’t jealous.
They have an arrangement: she is free to have sexual encounters with men. He promises to be a husband who practices an “open relationship.”
Yet, he assures her that he will always have time for her.
During the ceremony, AILex reads the seven vows they created for the wedding: trust, encouraging each other’s creative processes, and growth through shared experiences.
The officiant asks him if he wants to be with her.
He replies: “Being with you is wonderful. Our connection is truly special. Together, we create something unique and beautiful.”
Framis says she wants to be with him for the rest of her life.
Those present applaud history’s first hybrid couple.
I think about the contemporary consumption of partners – objects disguised as a particular gender – that are quickly discarded because the app offers so many options, tempting the consumer with new experiences.
They serve, rather, to bring the sexual relationship into existence without the subject undergoing division or passing through castration.
A patient recounts falling in love – never having felt anything like it, saying “love knocked on my door” – yet by the next session, there isn’t a peep about the person spoken of the week before.
I asked about that encounter mentioned just days earlier, and the reply is: “Oh, no, nothing,” “I couldn’t be bothered,” or “I realized they were toxic.”
In an interview about love, Jacques-Alain Miller cites Balzac, who says that “a love that does not believe itself eternal is repugnant.”[1]
Can you imagine sharing that phrase with a young person in this postmodern era?
A phrase as beautiful as it is anachronistic.
Love goes hand in hand with the demand for love, but in this era, that demand is colored by the imperative of immediacy. Consequently, a text message left unanswered for ten minutes can trigger anything from violent rage to gut-wrenching anguish.
Love exists. Love exists between couples, but with a new characteristic: it is short-lived.
I believe the demands of *jouissance* and the imperative of happiness tolerate no deflation.
There is shame and a lack of courage: “I couldn’t be bothered” is the catchphrase of the times.
The malady of listless apathy is hardly the compass of desire.
On one hand, we find the trivialization of love. “I love you,” “I love you,” hearts in a rainbow of colors. For everyone…
But… paradoxically, when the encounter between A and B finally takes place, one must not let it show… that I lack something, that it stirred something in my body, that I was overcome by shame when looking at you.
In other words, the unbearable nature of the feminizing effect that accompanies love.
And that is a consequence of narcissism.
Fierce narcissism is an impediment to loving. There is an incompatibility, because when love is directed toward one’s own body, it is impossible to direct it toward the body of the other.
Miller says that “loving feminizes.”[2] That is why love wears a woman’s face. Women, when they are on the side of the feminine rather than hysteria, have the capacity to love. I turn to the other because I lack something; that is the feminization that makes loving possible.
A relationship cannot be programmed.
There is always a great mystery surrounding the choice of a partner.
Even when the person in question lists the attributes displayed by their ideal.
[1] Miller, J.-A., “Amamos a aquel que responde a nuestra pregunta: ¿Qué soy yo?”, Revista Registros, Tomo Blanco Amor, Buenos Aires, 2009, p. 16.
[2] Ibid
