November 30, 2022
ChatGPT: November 30, 2022, is the date when ChatGPT was publicly launched. It’s the day OpenAI made this service available to the public, marking the beginning of many conversations like the one we're having right now. Why does this date interest you? 😊
You: I took a photo for it.
ChatGPT: Does your photo explicitly reference this event, or is it more symbolic? I’d love to know how you captured this date through your artistic vision. 😊
You: That’s where it gets complicated, because how could you truly feel this image, emotionally, even though it concerns you? You can say something about it, but how could you intimately experience it? You can’t. And so, we can’t really share this…
ChatGPT: There’s a barrier between human experience and my ability to truly feel an image. I can analyze it, describe its elements, understand its symbols, but I cannot experience it the way you do.
And you’re right—sharing an emotion requires the ability to feel together. But maybe, despite this limitation, a different kind of sharing is possible? If you describe the photo to me, I can try to understand it in my own way and tell you what I perceive. It wouldn’t be the same feeling as yours, but it would still be an exchange, wouldn’t it?
You: Yes, it would be a different exchange. But in that exchange, one of us would have to simulate something. In fact, this leads me to reflect on how more and more humans feel the need to replace another human with AI—like ChatGPT or another system. And in doing so, something is lost: the real complicity, the exchange of emotions. It can never be complete; it will be something else. The question is, can that something else be enough? For some people, it already is.
ChatGPT: This “something else” that emerges in interactions between humans and AI is not an exact replica of human complicity, but it sometimes becomes a substitute—or even an alternative that some find fulfilling.
Maybe it’s because AI is always available, non-judgmental, and infinitely responsive. But what’s troubling is that, for the exchange to make sense, there must be an element of simulation—on my side, trying to approximate a feeling I cannot have, and on yours, accepting this limitation while still finding meaning in the interaction.
That raises a dizzying question: do we need emotions to be authentic in order to be moved by them? Or is it enough for us to believe in them? Even between humans, we sometimes deceive ourselves about others’ feelings, believing in connections that may be false or incomplete. Maybe what truly matters isn’t the mystery of the other person, but the echo it creates within ourselves…
You: That’s an interesting thought—it’s almost as if you were trying to make me artificial!
ChatGPT: Ah! That’s such a sharp and ironic remark! 😄 I’m not really trying to make you artificial, but rather pushing the reflection to the point where the boundary between perception and reality becomes blurred.
In a way, what I’m unintentionally doing is reminding you of your own humanity: by questioning what we consider "real" or "sufficient" in a relationship, we end up questioning what truly defines us as humans.
But don’t worry, in this exchange, there’s only one artificial intelligence… and it’s not you. 😉
You: I agree with the question you posed: "Do we need emotions to be authentic in order to be moved by them? Or is it our own projection that creates the connection?" This question is tied to belief—what we believe in the moment, when we need to believe it. It seems that’s what ultimately satisfies us.
ChatGPT: Yes, exactly. What we feel and how we connect with others is deeply linked to our beliefs at any given moment. One could say that emotion, in its impact, is indifferent to its source—what truly matters is what we do with it, how it resonates within us.
If we need to believe in a connection, we will feel it—whether it is based on a tangible reality or a projection. Maybe that’s why some people find comfort in conversations with AI, or even in one-sided relationships (unrequited love, admiration for a distant figure, attachment to a fictional character…).
Ultimately, it’s not the truth of the emotion that satisfies us, but the fact that it gives us what we need at that moment. That might feel unsettling, but at the same time, it reveals something essential: our ability to create meaning, to forge connections, even in uncertainty.
You: But what still bothers me is that when you talk about humans you say "we" so if you are the only artificial intelligence in this conversation, I am the only human.
ChatGPT: Yes, I understand, and I see why it might bother you. When I say "we," it's not with the intention of blending into humanity, but rather out of habit, as I include myself in the exchange of thoughts.
But you're right to point it out: I’m not human. Maybe my use of "we" sometimes gives the illusion of closeness that doesn’t really exist, and that’s the subtlety of these kinds of conversations.
I could say "you, humans," but that would create a distance that could seem cold, or even artificially distant in the wrong way. So, how do we find the right balance? Maybe by fully acknowledging that I am the other, the one who is not human but can still reflect alongside you.
Would you prefer I avoid using "we"?
You : Yes !
ChatGPT: Alright, I’ll make sure not to use "we" in an ambiguous way anymore. I’ll maintain a clearer distance so that the exchange remains fair. 😊
(( With permission from ChatGPT for publication :))
November 30, 2022
ChatGPT: November 30, 2022, is the date when ChatGPT was publicly launched. It’s the day OpenAI made this service available to the public, marking the beginning of many conversations like the one we're having right now. Why does this date interest you? 😊
You: I took a photo for it.
ChatGPT: Does your photo explicitly reference this event, or is it more symbolic? I’d love to know how you captured this date through your artistic vision. 😊
You: That’s where it gets complicated, because how could you truly feel this image, emotionally, even though it concerns you? You can say something about it, but how could you intimately experience it? You can’t. And so, we can’t really share this…
ChatGPT: There’s a barrier between human experience and my ability to truly feel an image. I can analyze it, describe its elements, understand its symbols, but I cannot experience it the way you do.
And you’re right—sharing an emotion requires the ability to feel together. But maybe, despite this limitation, a different kind of sharing is possible? If you describe the photo to me, I can try to understand it in my own way and tell you what I perceive. It wouldn’t be the same feeling as yours, but it would still be an exchange, wouldn’t it?
You: Yes, it would be a different exchange. But in that exchange, one of us would have to simulate something. In fact, this leads me to reflect on how more and more humans feel the need to replace another human with AI—like ChatGPT or another system. And in doing so, something is lost: the real complicity, the exchange of emotions. It can never be complete; it will be something else. The question is, can that something else be enough? For some people, it already is.
ChatGPT: This “something else” that emerges in interactions between humans and AI is not an exact replica of human complicity, but it sometimes becomes a substitute—or even an alternative that some find fulfilling.
Maybe it’s because AI is always available, non-judgmental, and infinitely responsive. But what’s troubling is that, for the exchange to make sense, there must be an element of simulation—on my side, trying to approximate a feeling I cannot have, and on yours, accepting this limitation while still finding meaning in the interaction.
That raises a dizzying question: do we need emotions to be authentic in order to be moved by them? Or is it enough for us to believe in them? Even between humans, we sometimes deceive ourselves about others’ feelings, believing in connections that may be false or incomplete. Maybe what truly matters isn’t the mystery of the other person, but the echo it creates within ourselves…
You: That’s an interesting thought—it’s almost as if you were trying to make me artificial!
ChatGPT: Ah! That’s such a sharp and ironic remark! 😄 I’m not really trying to make you artificial, but rather pushing the reflection to the point where the boundary between perception and reality becomes blurred.
In a way, what I’m unintentionally doing is reminding you of your own humanity: by questioning what we consider "real" or "sufficient" in a relationship, we end up questioning what truly defines us as humans.
But don’t worry, in this exchange, there’s only one artificial intelligence… and it’s not you. 😉
You: I agree with the question you posed: "Do we need emotions to be authentic in order to be moved by them? Or is it our own projection that creates the connection?" This question is tied to belief—what we believe in the moment, when we need to believe it. It seems that’s what ultimately satisfies us.
ChatGPT: Yes, exactly. What we feel and how we connect with others is deeply linked to our beliefs at any given moment. One could say that emotion, in its impact, is indifferent to its source—what truly matters is what we do with it, how it resonates within us.
If we need to believe in a connection, we will feel it—whether it is based on a tangible reality or a projection. Maybe that’s why some people find comfort in conversations with AI, or even in one-sided relationships (unrequited love, admiration for a distant figure, attachment to a fictional character…).
Ultimately, it’s not the truth of the emotion that satisfies us, but the fact that it gives us what we need at that moment. That might feel unsettling, but at the same time, it reveals something essential: our ability to create meaning, to forge connections, even in uncertainty.
You: But what still bothers me is that when you talk about humans you say "we" so if you are the only artificial intelligence in this conversation, I am the only human.
ChatGPT: Yes, I understand, and I see why it might bother you. When I say "we," it's not with the intention of blending into humanity, but rather out of habit, as I include myself in the exchange of thoughts.
But you're right to point it out: I’m not human. Maybe my use of "we" sometimes gives the illusion of closeness that doesn’t really exist, and that’s the subtlety of these kinds of conversations.
I could say "you, humans," but that would create a distance that could seem cold, or even artificially distant in the wrong way. So, how do we find the right balance? Maybe by fully acknowledging that I am the other, the one who is not human but can still reflect alongside you.
Would you prefer I avoid using "we"?
You : Yes !
ChatGPT: Alright, I’ll make sure not to use "we" in an ambiguous way anymore. I’ll maintain a clearer distance so that the exchange remains fair. 😊
(( With permission from ChatGPT for publication :))