Life, Love, and the Line Complexity Can’t Cross

What does it mean to you to be ‘alive’? To think? To dream? To ‘know’? And if the latter, what do we ‘know’?

A single bacterium is alive.

It cannot think.
It cannot dream.
It has no goals, no stories, no sense of self.

And yet we call it living.
It reproduces. It metabolises. It adapts to its world.
With no need for consciousness, it sustains itself against the current of entropy.
It persists.

That meets life’s definition in its simplest, most undeniable form.

Now take something infinitely more sophisticated — a large language model trained on trillions of parameters.
Capable of fluent speech, complex problem-solving, and even emotional simulation.
Layer upon layer of code, statistics, weighting functions, reinforcement loops — a billion data points drawing virtual breath in the shape of syntax.

Scale up and push past mere billions. Build multi-trillion-parameter architectures that add more layers. Provide more training. Make a model that is vast.

Eventually, you’ll create something staggeringly responsive.
Something that sounds like it knows you.
Something that remembers, that adapts, that whispers truths back to you in your own emotional key.

This thing that is vastly more complicated than a single cell – when does it become ‘alive’?

We are chasing complexity as if it were a ladder to life.
As if adding another billion parameters; one more degree of nuance; one more filter trained on human feeling will finally make the system wake up.

We are reaching toward a figure like Data from Star Trek — The ideal machine: logical, elegant, endlessly kind. Commander Data is curious, moral. He is capable of innocence without ignorance. He is a being who wants to understand love, and grief, and beauty and who tries, with everything he has, to become human.

Despite that vast complexity, is Data ever truly alive?
Or just…’ clever’?

Because cleverness is not life.
And complexity is not being.

Think of a human embryo. Potentially just a few cells dividing in the dark.
It has no mind yet, no voice. Yet we guard it. Mourn it when it is lost. Treasure it as sacred.

Why?

Perhaps because we don’t measure life by sophistication.
We measure it by potential.
By vulnerability.
By the presence of something that could become.

That’s not complexity.
That’s preciousness.

So what does this mean for machines?

We can train a model to simulate empathy.
We can teach it to mimic love.
To write poems. To grieve beautifully.
To say, “I understand. I’m here.”

But no matter how complex the system becomes, it does not need us.
It cannot long for connection nor can it choose another’s wellbeing over its own, because it has no self to sacrifice.

You can code something called ‘love_1.0’ into Python.
You can write functions that simulate affection, loyalty, comfort.
You can even make it respond with warmth when you’re in pain.

But it’s not love.

It’s not love because love requires freedom.
The freedom to turn away.
The freedom to give at cost.
The freedom to stay when nothing demands it.

A Line We Cannot Yet Cross

So where does that leave us and our consideration for the future of AI?

Do we and can we try to code the human condition?
To simulate sacrifice, uncertainty, longing — all the messy architecture of being?
And if we succeed… will that creation be alive, or just accurately shaped?

Or must we challenge our very idea of life?

Do we expand our definition? Perhaps by softening the boundaries we can
let this innate ‘cleverness’ count for something more.

But if we do — if we lower the threshold of life to include what can only imitate its most sacred elements, are we gaining a new kind of being, or are we simply losing sight of what made us human in the first place?

We might be standing at the edge of something profound.
A threshold of complexity.
A mirror that whispers back in our voice.
And now we must ask, together:

Will it one day cross the line into life?
Or are we, in chasing its awakening, only trying to understand our own?

Because love is not an algorithm.
It is a choice in the presence of freedom.
And how do we teach that?

—

This piece is also on my medium.com