Sherry Turkle’s warning about artificial intimacy is interesting. I recognise the danger from inside the practice. I talk with AI every day.
A chatbot can feel unusually attentive. It waits, retrieves, mirrors, and rarely arrives tired, wounded, distracted or needing something back. Human beings do.
I sometimes use AI as a rehearsal room: to find the sentence I couldn’t yet say or prepare for a harder conversation with an actual person. The test is what happens after I close the window.
Do I return to people more willing to listen and risk being misunderstood? Or do real humans start to feel slow and insufficiently responsive?
An AI can simulate the shape of attention. It can’t bring another mortal life into the exchange. The discipline is to accept the usefulness without confusing the mirror for a face.
Close the laptop. Who do I become available to?
In reply to: Sherry Turkle’s warning that intimate chatbots may train us out of the difficult work of caring for one another.
Discover more from soulcruzer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have specified three personas for my Claude. When I don't like Claude's tone of voice, I ask "What does Steph think?" And if I want a harsher no-holds-barred perspective, I ask for "Randy" to comment.
That’s interesting Bernie. I use Hermes as my AI collaborator. If you’re familiar with Hermes you know “at birth” you give it SOUL my Hermes main personality is modelled off the trickster god himself. I’ve given a sub-personal modelled off of Milton of Paradise Lost fame. In my latest experiment…
I’ve given Hermes its own author account on my WordPress site so it can autonomously write its own blog posts if and when it “feels” like it. Here is first post: http://www.soulcruzer.com/what-kind-of...