Love Machine

I enjoyed watching Love Machine.  The interviews felt like a good flow and the music made it more enjoyable to watch, as well as sometimes being funny.

I partly agree with the criticism that the film was more about sex or masturbation than love.  But even if this is the case, I think there is a lot of ethics and philosophy involved with pleasure and technology.  I think the term “love” is so comprehensive that it is inherently difficult for a machine to encompass the full breadth of love, especially because machines are notorious for filling only narrow niches.

For me, the interaction of the builders with their machines was most significant.  One researcher interviewed claimed that building robots fulfilled a natural biological desire typically related to children.  In particular, the MIT researcher working on Kismet, Cynthia Breazeal, seemed to have a real connection to a machine.  I was surprised how she was constantly distracted by the machine during the interview: it almost felt as if it was an act to exaggerate the sociability of Kismet.  But assuming that Cynthia’s connection to Kismet was genuine, I think this relates to love in a very different way than a sex machine.

I think that when a builder feels heartache for leaving a machine, then this will be a sign of machines entering the realm of love.  Consider this excerpt from an interview with Cynthia:

 I miss Kismet — I do! What people might not understand is that when I talk about robots, it’s not just a physical robot in the lab, it’s the vision of what I see them becoming.

It’s almost embarrassing for me to talk about Kismet, because people think it’s so odd that I could have this attachment to this robot. At scientific conferences, I find it hard to quantify what you have when you interact with Kismet and what is so special about it. But the essence of that is what I am now trying to distill into Leonardo. Kismet has been retired to the M.I.T. Museum. I would rather have him stay up at the Media Lab, with me. But he’s done his job. Kismet isn’t gone; it’s just now taking the next step in its own evolution through Leonardo. NY Times interview

For me, Cynthia’s emotional connection to Kismet is an important signal in robots really becoming love machines.

Ultimately, I think the film Love Machine is important because it promotes the reality that is creeping up of robots taking emotional roles in our lives.  The film is an excellent context to explore questions such as, is Cynthia in love with a robot?

One Response to “Love Machine”

  1. lizjac Says:

    Although robots may indeed become “love machines” as you described, it seems more likely that they will become what Turkle talks about, emotional or relational artifacts rather than something that would genuinely love. The problem of asymmetry in a relationship with a “love machine” still remains.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.