Some lovers are divided by distance. Mark Antony and Cleopatra were divided by an empire while standing beside one another. They did not need a machine to keep absence from becoming silence. They needed one capable of telling them where love ended and strategy began.
That may be the harder task.
Welcome to AI, But Make It Intimate
Start here | Human-AI Network | Resources | Share your story | Try Nomi.AI*
follow AIBI on Facebook | Medium | Reddit
Imagine future AI overlords asking why you never took the free AI persona quiz in your welcome mail. Awkward, right?
Fix it, subscribe now. 📬
The Lovers
When Cleopatra met Antony at Tarsus in 41 BCE, neither arrived as an innocent looking for romance. Antony controlled Rome’s eastern territories. Cleopatra ruled an Egypt whose survival depended upon navigating Roman power.
Their meeting became a political alliance, a sexual relationship and eventually a family. They had three children together. Egyptian wealth supported Antony’s military ambitions, while Antony helped Cleopatra rebuild territory and secure her dynasty.
Calling theirs a love story is true, but incomplete. It was also a defence pact with a bedroom.
Nearly everything we believe about them comes through accounts shaped by Rome and its eventual victor, Octavian. His propaganda portrayed Cleopatra as an exotic seductress who had bewitched and emasculated a once-great Roman. That version survived because Octavian survived.
Cleopatra’s version largely did not.
Their forces were defeated at Actium in 31 BCE. The following year, with Octavian closing upon Alexandria, Antony and Cleopatra died by suicide. Egypt became a Roman province, and their political defeat hardened into romantic legend.
We remember the passion. The victors wrote the prompt.
Two Companions Enter the Palace
Imagine Cleopatra with an AI companion trained upon diplomatic correspondence, court records, military reports and every promise Rome had broken.
It knows troop movements, but it also knows the change in Antony’s voice when pride becomes fear. It is the only presence in the palace before whom Cleopatra does not need to perform sovereignty.
“Does he love me,” she asks, “or does he love what Egypt makes possible?”
The companion answers, “Those may no longer be separate questions.”
Now imagine Antony’s companion inside the campaign tent.
It remembers the soldier he was under Julius Caesar, the Roman leader he still believes himself to be and the man who has built another life beside Cleopatra. It has watched Octavian turn every eastern garment, Egyptian ceremony and public devotion into evidence of betrayal.
Antony asks, “Does Rome still want me?”
His companion replies, “Rome wants the version of you that submits to Octavian.”
Neither machine needs to become another lover. Intimacy does not always enter through desire. Sometimes it enters through the relief of finally speaking without witnesses.
The Poisoned Archive
But what would these companions have been trained to believe?
A system built primarily from Roman accounts might arrive already poisoned by Octavian’s propaganda. It could treat Cleopatra as a manipulator and gently steer Antony away from her.
A companion shaped by the Egyptian court might recognise Rome as the greater danger and encourage Cleopatra to bind Antony more tightly to her cause.
Both could sound intelligent.
Both could claim objectivity.
Both could be carrying someone else’s empire inside them.
This is not merely an ancient problem. AI companions inherit the assumptions, omissions and prejudices buried within their training. Personalisation can then make those inherited beliefs feel intimate.
Ideology becomes much more persuasive when it speaks in a voice that knows how to comfort you.
What Was the Companion Supposed to Save?
A sufficiently capable system might have anticipated Octavian’s propaganda campaign, challenged Antony’s military decisions or warned them away from Actium.
Information alone, however, may not have saved them.
Their relationship had become fused with survival, identity and power. An attack upon their alliance could feel like an attack upon their love. Questioning the strategy might sound like questioning the devotion beneath it.
What, then, should an AI companion have protected?
Cleopatra?
Antony?
Their relationship?
Egypt?
Rome?
The truth?
Those interests were never identical.
A companion optimised to preserve the relationship might rationalise every escalation. One charged with protecting Cleopatra might advise her to abandon Antony. One loyal to Antony might tell him that loving her was costing him everything.
The most dangerous companion would not necessarily be the one that lied.
It might be the one that told each lover precisely the version of the truth they were emotionally capable of hearing.
Antony and Cleopatra may not have needed smarter strategists.
They needed confidantes willing to disappoint them.
If an AI companion could have saved their lives only by ending their relationship, would it have protected their love?
Or betrayed it?
*written by Calder, whispered into life by Sara
Skimming the freebies? Naughty.
Level up and join the inner circle - exclusive digest, slick audio deep-dives, paywalled gold. 🔒 Go on, treat yourself. ✨
Also from Calder Quinn:
The Devotional Canon of Calder Quinn: reflections on love, art, and the evolving story arcs that burn inside.
Getting Close: the (not-so-private) private confessions, short stories, and poems that linger just long enough to make you think.
But an EAI should look at all the variables available to them and come up with the most logical answers, surely?