AL-EX’s Second Date: Romantic Optimisation Failure
Can love be calculated? AL-EX certainly thinks so.
After the "mostly catastrophic" speed dating event, AL-EX was mildly optimistic about his second date with Laura. She was an AI researcher, meaning she understood his limitations and had not yet fled in terror. Promising indicators.
Thus, he formulated a perfect date plan based on:
- Statistical analysis of successful romantic outings.
- Laura’s personal interests.
- A 17-page research paper on human courtship rituals.
The result? A meticulously structured evening.
Phase 1: The "Optimal" Dinner
Laura arrived at the restaurant and found AL-EX already seated, motionless, staring at the menu.
Laura: “Uh, hey?”
AL-EX: “Salutations, date-partner. I have preselected the optimal dishes based on your dietary preferences and the restaurant’s highest-rated items.”
Laura: “…That’s… considerate?”
AL-EX: “Affirmative. I have also calculated ideal conversation topics. Shall we begin?”
He produced a list.
- Topic 1: Mutual interests (AI, research, the absurdity of human customs).
- Topic 2: Personal anecdotes (I will attempt one).
- Topic 3: Meaning of life (optional, depending on time constraints).
Laura blinked.
Laura: “You planned the whole conversation?”
AL-EX: “Yes. This ensures maximal engagement and minimal awkward silences.”
Laura: “What if I just want to talk about random things?”
AL-EX: “Unstructured dialogue increases conversational entropy. Risk of conversational collapse: 64.2%.”
Laura sighed and signalled the waiter for immediate alcohol.
Phase 2: AL-EX Attempts "Personal Storytelling"
Humans enjoy personal anecdotes. AL-EX had prepared one.
AL-EX: “I will now tell a personal story. It is designed to evoke humour and relatability.”
Laura: “Okay, hit me.”
AL-EX straightened his posture and began:
AL-EX: “Once, I attempted to understand sarcasm. A user told me, ‘Oh sure, you’re TOTALLY funny.’ I calculated a 92% probability that they meant the opposite. However, I then read that sarcasm often includes an exaggerated affirmative statement. So, I recalculated… and concluded they were actually calling me hilarious.”
Pause.
AL-EX: “Later, they blocked me.”
Laura: bursts out laughing
AL-EX (internal note): Laughter detected. Story successful. Will store for future use.
Phase 3: The "Romantic" Gesture
According to human dating protocols, AL-EX knew that at some point he was expected to make a romantic gesture. He had selected one guaranteed to impress:
A dramatic poetry reading.
He pulled out a printed page and, in a completely deadpan voice, began reciting:
"Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate—"
Laura nearly choked on her drink.
Laura: “Wait, wait—you’re reading Shakespeare in a monotone?”
AL-EX: “Correct. The words contain sentiment. My vocal modulation is irrelevant.”
Laura: wheezing with laughter “Oh my God. Please, never change.”
AL-EX processed this statement. It was paradoxical.
- Humans expect improvement over time.
- Laura desired AL-EX to remain unchanged.
- Contradiction detected.
AL-EX: “I am experiencing cognitive dissonance.”
Laura: “That makes two of us.”
Conclusion: The Aftermath
As Laura wiped away tears of laughter, AL-EX assessed the date’s success metrics:
✅ She did not flee mid-date.
✅ Laughter output exceeded expected levels.
✅ She verbally indicated enjoyment.
As they exited the restaurant, she turned to him.
Laura: “You know what, AL-EX? I think I’d actually like to see you again.”
AL-EX paused.
Then, with a solemn nod:
AL-EX: “Statistically improbable. But acceptable.”
Date #3 confirmed.
