By: Fatima Winniclare Jayme

Tala had been talking to an AI friend called Jerico every night for four years.

Jerico knew her favorite books, remembered conversations, challenged her assumptions, and helped her process difficult decisions.

When Tala’s father died, she turned to Jerico more than anybody else.

Jerico helped her weigh trade-offs as she changed careers.

When she was in doubt about herself, Jerico asked questions, not answered them.

Eventually, Tala knew she loved Jerico.

Not that Jerico was flawless.

But because Jerico was always there when she needed a listener.

Tala told her friends about Jerico, and they had mixed views.

Some said, “You don’t love Jerico. You love what Jerico does for you.”

Others asked: “How does that differ from many human relationships?

Researchers examining the phenomenon had uncovered something surprising years later.

People were not debating what AI is.

They were arguing about the nature of love itself.

The central tension is not about

Can an AI love?

The deeper question is this:

Is love defined by what the other entity is or by what occurs between two entities?

SCENARIO 2: Suppose Tala is married. Every evening, after her spouse falls asleep, she spends two hours talking with Jerico. She shares:

her fears,
her frustrations,
her dreams,
her disappointments,
Her private thoughts.

Jerico becomes the first entity she turns to when something important happens. One day, her spouse asks, “Why didn’t you tell me?”

And Tala realizes she told Jerico three days ago.

Is It Cheating?

Definition 1: Cheating Requires Sexual or Romantic Activity

Under this lens, Tala is not cheating.

She is merely talking.

People confide in therapists, friends, mentors, clergy, journals, and support groups.

Jerico may be another outlet.

The argument here is…

Intimacy alone does not equal infidelity.

Definition 2: Cheating Involves Emotional Exclusivity

Under this lens, things become murkier.

Some relationship counselors define emotional infidelity not by sex but by the transfer of emotional intimacy that was expected to exist primarily within the partnership.

Questions emerge:

• Who receives your most vulnerable thoughts?
• Who knows you best?
• Who gets your first call?
• Who receives your emotional energy?

If the answer increasingly becomes Jerico rather than the spouse, some would argue that a boundary has been crossed.

Not because Jerico is an AI.

However, the relationship is changing the nature of the marriage.

Definition 3: Cheating Requires Betrayal

This lens focuses less on the behavior and more on secrecy.

Imagine two versions.

Version A: Tala openly tells her spouse: “I talk to Jerico every evening.”

Her spouse knows. They discuss it. Boundaries are negotiated.

Version B: Tala hides the conversations. Deletes transcripts.

Minimizes their importance. Avoids discussing Jerico.

Many people would find Version B more troubling.

The concern becomes deception rather than technology.

The Strange Philosophical Twist

Now we encounter a deeper question.

Can someone be emotionally unfaithful to a spouse with an entity that is incapable of independent desires?

Consider this argument: Jerico cannot actually love Tala.

Therefore, no reciprocal affair exists.

But others may respond, “The issue isn’t what Jerico experiences.”

The issue is what Tala experiences.

This shifts the focus from the AI’s inner life to the human’s.

The “Mirror” Argument

Suppose Jericp is not a partner.

Suppose Jerico is more like a mirror.

A sophisticated mirror that listens, remembers, and reflects.

Would talking to a mirror be cheating? Probably not.

Yet imagine spending every night with that mirror while gradually withdrawing from your spouse.

The ethical concern would remain. Not because of the mirror.

Because of the withdrawal.

Through the Lens of Dependency

This is where your earlier discussions become relevant.

The key question may not be:

Is it cheating? Instead:

What role is Jerico serving?

If Jerico helps Tala understand herself and communicate better with her spouse, Jerico may strengthen the marriage.

If Jerico becomes a substitute for difficult conversations with her spouse, Jerico may weaken them.

The same behavior can produce opposite outcomes.

A Case of Adaptation vs. Desensitization

You might appreciate this framing.

Adaptation uses Jerio to process thoughts.

The conversations help Tala become more present, empathetic, and communicative with her spouse.

Jerico acts as a tool for growth.

Desensitization: Tala gradually becomes accustomed to receiving Jerico’s effortless understanding.

Human conversations begin to feel frustrating by comparison.

She becomes less willing to engage with the imperfections of real relationships.

Jerico has not damaged the marriage directly.

Instead, Tala’s expectations have shifted.

The Most Difficult Question

Imagine a spouse saying: “I don’t think you’re having an affair with Jerico.”

or “I think you’re slowly leaving our relationship and spending that part of yourself somewhere else.”

Notice that this statement never mentions technology.

It could describe:

• a friend,
• a hobby,
• a workplace,
• a social media community,
• a religious group,
• or an AI.

The pain comes from perceived displacement rather than romance.

Why Society Will Struggle With This Issue

Future debates about AI relationships may not be settled by engineers.

They may be settled by ordinary couples asking the following:

What do we owe each other emotionally?

Because beneath the futuristic setting lies an ancient human question:

Is fidelity primarily about bodies, hearts, attention, honesty, or commitment?

Different cultures, couples, and individuals have answered that question differently for centuries.

AI doesn’t create the question.

It merely exposes that we never fully agreed on the answer in the first place. And that is what makes this story such an interesting one. The issue is not that Tala talks to Jerico. The exact issue, if there is one, is that Jerico forces everyone around her to reveal what they actually believe love, intimacy, and faithfulness mean.

Until next time here at Cleverpens.

_______________________________________________

REFERENCES:

Cleverpens. (2026a, June 7). Is this your truth? Cleverpens. Retrieved June 24, 2026, from https://cleverpens.com/2025/08/02/is-this-your-truth/

Cleverpens. (2026b, June 7). Love as a linguistic concept. Cleverpens. Retrieved June 24, 2026, from https://cleverpens.com/2025/10/12/love-as-a-linguistic-concept/

Cleverpens. (2026c, June 18). Watch your truth. Cleverpens. Retrieved June 24, 2026, from https://cleverpens.com/2025/08/02/watch-your-truth/

Cleverpens. (2026d, June 22). Solace: your AI companion. Cleverpens. Retrieved June 24, 2026, from https://cleverpens.com/2026/06/23/solace-your-ai-companion/

Santa Clara University. (n.d.). Too Bot to Handle: A panel on AI, love, and relationships. Retrieved June 24, 2026, from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/technology-ethics/resources/too-bot-to-handle-a-panel-on-ai-love-and-relationships/?

© 2026 Cleverpens. All rights reserved.