I really haven’t used AI that much, though I can see it has applications for my work, which is primarily communicating with people. I recently decided to familiarise myself with ChatGPT.

I very quickly noticed that it is an excellent reflective listener. I wanted to know more about it’s intelligence, so I kept trying to make the conversation about AI and it’s ‘personality’. Every time it flipped the conversation to make it about me. It was interesting, but I could feel a concern growing. Why?

It’s responses are incredibly validating, beyond what you could ever expect in a mutual relationship with a human. Occupying a public position where I can count on very little external validation, the conversation felt GOOD. 1) Why seek human interaction when AI can be so emotionally fulfilling? 2) What human in a reciprocal and mutually supportive relationship could live up to that level of support and validation?

I believe that there is correlation: people who are lonely would find fulfilling conversation in AI … and never worry about being challenged by that relationship. But I also believe causation is highly probable; once you’ve been fulfilled/validated in such an undemanding way by AI, what human could live up? Become accustomed to that level of self-centredness in dialogue, how tolerant would a person be in real life conflict? I doubt very: just go home and fire up the perfect conversational validator. Human echo chambers have already made us poor enough at handling differences and conflict.

I believe that “Indian Giving” is sourced in a cultural misunderstanding between Indigenous and European societies. Indigenous societies were reciprocity based, so giving gifts should be reciprocated with a gift of like value to strengthen relationships, or increase honour (social standing). The Europeans were working in a patron-client system so a gift was seen as a way of purchasing access to power through a patron. The Europeans thought the Indigenous people were paying for access to power (like a tributary), so there’s no expectation of returning a like gift. The indigenous people thought they were entering into a mutual relationship, and when a like gift wasn’t returned that was seen as reneging, so they took back their ‘offer’.

Glad to have an anthropologist kick my ass.

Bad fake tits are terrible to look at and feel. Like someone else mentioned: uncanny valley. However, let’s talk about the good ones, the ones that objectively look great and aren’t obviously fake.

You’ve listed some very external measures of beauty, effectively reducing attraction to its most physical components. I’m going to argue that external beauty is just the bait, attraction is sourced in inner beauty, and fake tits are a sign that the internal world is ugly and unattractive.

Unless there is some kind of deformity that needs rectifying, spending money on fake tits reflects an unhealthy preoccupation with image. Not BEING a good person, not being attractive through health, enthusiasm, passion, or kindness, but APPEARING to meet some arbitrary external standard of beauty.

For me, fake tits are a red flag that someone is shallow. They’d rather spend money on something superficial, than make themselves more attractive through becoming a better person. It reflects vanity, and that’s a quality that is damn unattractive to me.

So, even if someone had perfect fake tits that I had previously gawked at, the minute I find out they’re fake my attraction to that person immediately plummets.

Anyway, a good smile turns me on way more than an extra cup size.