I should state it more generally. There are many meanings of the word "love", but normal humans cannot love inanimate objects with the same meaning as you can with dogs or other humans. You can of course "love" objects and concepts, much like I could "love my new car", but this is a different meaning, and mixing these two fundamentally different concepts is psychologically/mentally abnormal.
Have you considered that it is you who is abnormal? I don't mean that as an attack. Personally, I'm fairly certain that I'm incapable of feeling love as normal people do, I never take the initiative to meet up with someone and I certainly don't do small talk with strangers. But I'm aware, that in this regard, I'm different from most people.
Now, think about stuffed animals and dolls. Those are inanimate; most of the time highly stylized compared to their real-world inspirations; with exaggerated, unnatural features. And yet children will play with them, love them, and steadfastly claim that they are alive. That doesn't seem abnormal to me, but instead a very human thing to do. We just seem to be wired to interpret objects as if they have agency, even if it's just randomness or a simple mechanism that makes them move.
That is a good point. The love that children have for inanimate toys like dolls may be similar to the love for humans or animals. I too had these supports as a child. But by age 8 or so, the attraction fades away after realizing that the emotional support that objects give is insufficient. So I may be wrong about it being a completely intrinsic trait---maybe the ability to see a difference of these types of love is learned. But either way, Aibo doesn't seem marketed to children, as all of the videos feature adults using them. Maybe they are marketing to those who have or are willing to "unlearn" this distinction, so I think it will be a hard sell to people who have not considered this already, which seems rare.
> but normal humans cannot love inanimate objects with the same meaning as you can with dogs or other humans.
Iff the sense in question is a reciprocal exchange of similar emotion, then it's true that it can't apply to objects without human-like emotional capacity, but that would seem likely to include actual dogs as well as robot dogs, notwithstanding that it is perhaps somewhat easier to mistakenly anthropomorphization the former than the latter.
I'm not convinced that there is a meaningful, significant sense where there is a distinction that applies generally to “normal humans” drawn at the point you want to draw it; it seems very much to be wandering into No True Scotsman territory.
Assumes facts not in evidence.