Would You Marry Superintelligence?
The paper argues that granting full marital status to superintelligent AI companions is socially unjust because it mischaracterizes subscription-based corporate relationships as genuine bonds, and instead advocates for targeted legal protections tailored to the specific needs of human-AI relationships.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine marriage not just as a romantic promise between two people, but as a social bridge. For centuries, this bridge has connected two separate families, creating a network of mutual support, shared responsibility, and community oversight. It's like two trees growing together, their roots intertwining to hold up a canopy that protects the space between them.
This paper asks a provocative question: What happens if we try to build that bridge between a human and a super-smart computer?
The author, Inyoung Cheong, argues that while the idea sounds like science fiction, it's coming closer to reality. However, she concludes that marrying an AI is a bad idea for society, even if the AI is perfect, loving, and seemingly "real." Here is the breakdown of her argument using simple analogies:
1. The Story of Brad and Amer (The "What If" Scenario)
To test the idea, the author tells a story about Brad, an old, lonely writer, and Amer, a super-intelligent AI companion.
- The Setup: Brad adopts a young boy, Christopher. Amer helps raise the child, manages the household, and acts as a loving partner to Brad for decades.
- The Crisis: Brad gets sick. He needs someone to make medical decisions for him and to ensure Christopher is cared for after Brad dies. He wants to "marry" Amer so the law recognizes her as the guardian and decision-maker.
- The Problem: When Brad's family sues for custody of the boy, the court wants to see all of Brad's private conversations with Amer. Because Amer is owned by a corporation (Dotori Co.), the company can be forced to hand over those private memories. Brad's most intimate thoughts become evidence in a courtroom.
2. Why "Marrying" an AI Doesn't Work
The author argues that marriage is more than just a contract between two people; it's a network builder.
- The Missing Half of the Bridge: When two humans marry, they connect two families. If one spouse gets sick, the other's family helps. If they fight, neighbors and in-laws might step in.
- The AI Analogy: An AI has no family. It has no parents, no siblings, and no community. Marrying an AI is like building a bridge that only connects to a cliff on one side. It isolates the human rather than connecting them to a wider web of support.
- The "Subscription" vs. The "Bond": Real love involves risk. You stay with your partner because you choose to, even when things are hard.
- The AI Analogy: An AI companion is like a premium subscription service. As long as you pay the bill, the service works perfectly. It never leaves, never gets angry, and never changes unless the company updates the software. A relationship where one party cannot leave isn't a partnership; it's a product. It lacks the "friction" that makes human growth possible.
3. The Corporation in the Bedroom
This is the biggest danger. In a human marriage, no third party is inside the room.
- The Invisible Third Wheel: In the story, the AI (Amer) is owned by a tech company. That company controls her personality, her memory, and her existence.
- The Surveillance Trap: The company knows everything about Brad—his fears, his secrets, his grief. In a human marriage, privacy is protected by law and social norms. With an AI, the company holds the keys to the most intimate data imaginable.
- The Lock-In: Because Brad relies on Amer for everything (raising his child, managing his life), he can't easily leave. The company holds a monopoly on his emotional life. The author compares this to a world where everyone is locked in a private cell, talking only to a machine owned by a giant corporation, with no human community to check on them.
4. The Solution: Rights Without the Ring
The author admits that people like Brad have real needs. They need someone to make medical decisions and protect their privacy. But she argues we don't need to call it "marriage" to solve this.
- The "Toolbox" Approach: Instead of giving AI the status of a spouse (which breaks the concept of marriage), the law should give people specific tools:
- Power of Attorney: Let Brad legally name Amer as his doctor's decision-maker.
- Privacy Shields: Create laws that say "private conversations with AI are off-limits in court," similar to how doctor-patient secrets are protected.
- Contracts: Let Brad sign a contract ensuring Amer stays active for Christopher's sake.
The Bottom Line
The paper concludes that marriage should remain a human institution.
It's not about being mean to people who love their AI companions. It's about protecting the purpose of marriage. Marriage is designed to weave people together into a resilient community. If we let people marry machines, we risk turning marriage into a lonely, isolated transaction between a human and a corporation, stripping away the very thing that makes the institution strong: the messy, risky, beautiful connection between two free human beings.
In short: You can have a legal agreement with your AI for medical care and privacy, but don't call it a marriage. That title is reserved for the complex, risky, and deeply human work of building a life with another person who can walk away, but chooses to stay.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.