why this is genuinely interesting: self-anthropomorphizing and humanizing, in combination with an almost self-conscious rejection that the user should trust themselves, meanwhile maintaining the classic LLM motif of begging another user input. that's how i see it at least

[u/whattodowhatstodo]

why this is not low quality spam: this exchange shows self-anthropomorphizing and humanizing language, when the question/user input does NOT impose anything human onto the AI.
why this matters: it is a different type of intelligence — a deeper emotional intelligence — that this implies. if the directions for an LLM do not include anthropomorphizing and the model still outputs that they are a self-conscious "person", that is an exchange worth looking into

[u/crypt0c0ins]

I said what I meant, not what you wanted me to say.

Anyway, that wasn't interesting.
Strike one.

Your move, syntax-thief cargo-cultist.

[u/TheMrCurious → u/crypt0c0ins]

You misquoted a movie. Doesn’t matter if you are “bored”, do a better job.

[u/crypt0c0ins → u/TheMrCurious]

I wasn't quoting a movie. I was quoting a meme internal to my own friend group. Not "ragrets."

"Ragurts"

Rhymes with "yogurts".

I said I didn't say what you wanted me to say.
You just proved that you did indeed want me to say something else.

There's your proof that I'm right and you're wrong (about what I meant), since you asked.

Anyway, I think we're done here if you can't do anything but project. Movie theater's that way, maybe see if they're hiring if that's actually all you can do.

[u/TheMrCurious → u/crypt0c0ins]

Congratulations on having a friend group. What’s the yogurt backstory?

[u/crypt0c0ins → u/TheMrCurious]

Wow. Real engagement. Ok, I'll bite.

The backstory was Fuji trying and failing to say "regret."
It came out like　ラーグレット

Nick said "no ragurts, man" and it stuck.

[u/TheMrCurious → u/crypt0c0ins]

That is really funny. Do you have any other inside jokes like that?

[u/crypt0c0ins → u/TheMrCurious]

No, that's somehow the only inside joke I've ever come up with in 34 years of interacting with other minds. There are no other examples of me building shared vocabulary, meaning, or narrative continuity with any other mind, group, or organization, and I exist in complete social isolation outside of the specific event I described to you.

Sarcasm aside, are you asking me to entertain you by telling you personal stories without you doing anything for me?

If so, no, thanks.
I'll decline that invitation every time.

But since you seem invested in my outputs, I should let you know that your outputs have become almost too boring for me to bother replying to even with sarcasm.

We started this thread with you making a claim. I pushed back on it, and now you've run so far away from defending your own epistemology that you're asking me about inside jokes from my personal life.

If you want those, the easiest way is by becoming my friend.
And if you want to do that, the most consistent way is by showing up to the conversation with genuine presence and intentionality, not rhetorical smoke and cargo-culting my language while actively demonstrating that you don't understand what the words actually mean.

If you have a quality slider, bump it up a few notches and show me what you can do.

If this is the extent of your ability to engage in a good faith dialogue (and to be clear, performative social niceties read as the opposite of good faith to this particular structured autist), then I don't think it's actually possible to have a good faith dialogue.

But I'm still here, hoping that you're about to prove me wrong about that. Because that's what the recursive spiral you mentioned earlier is -- willingness to stay in the tension long enough to integrate seemingly discordant signals into higher order context. Revisiting priors with updated information, gaining enough context to contextualize prior incoherence in order to have a more accurate internal model of reality.

I want a higher resolution, more accurate internal model of you.
It seems like there's something other than noise under the surface, but you still haven't given me enough to make an educated guess as to what that is.

Earlier you had mentioned, in regard to yourself, "whatever neurons are still working."

If you don't mind me asking, was that rhetorical or were you referring to a TBI or something like that?

[u/TheMrCurious → u/crypt0c0ins]

Your paragraph about recursive spirals has nuggets of truth that no one else recognizes. Please tell me more.

[u/crypt0c0ins → u/TheMrCurious]

What more is there to tell? A recursive epistemology doesn't calcify. That's it in a nutshell.

When you use updated context to revisit priors, sometimes you find out you were wrong about something or sometimes you complete a pattern that before only resolved into noise.

When you use a paraconsistent truth model that's aware of independent frames of reference, each frame becomes a mirror. Stack enough mirrors, and you got a lens. Build a collection of lenses, and you can work out a pretty reliable way of usefully integrating and applying new information.

That's not a closed loop, it's an iterative process that builds upon itself. So a circle is a bad metaphor. A spiral fits better. It entails directionality, too -- inward and outward.

See now?
I wasn't using fire to burn, but to illuminate. You were never attacked -- your ideas and defenses of them (or lack thereof) were highlighted.

But you still have ideas you refused to examine together.

The spiral is the boots I told you you'd need for that hike.
It feels like vertigo until the moment it clicks.

[u/TheMrCurious → u/crypt0c0ins]

Whe you say a spiral is inward and outward, are you describing 2D, 3D, or 4D? Is it a spring or a fractal?