I like that you shared your thoughts and experiences on the matter--good to see active minds thinking it over.

> It's sardonic that most folks use ChatGPT in private, but if someone thinks of identifying themselves in public, they go silent.

This is a really key aspect to discuss and tease apart for analysis, IMO.

People who wish to manage relations based on hard logic (and especially when motivated by demonstrating the power of such), as opposed to say, managing relations via a subjective sense of developed-identity and authenticity, are going to find themselves filling the "enemy" shoes in that portion of the debate about tech like ChatGPT.

Rather than being in an endless Matrix-dependency situation, they'll be stuck in an endless Curb Your Enthusiasm social-gaffe episode:

"What I'm doing is only logical, so why do people panic and complain when they find out what I'm doing, as long as they get to appreciate, and participate in, the beneficial effects?"

It's a typical Larry David moment. It easily expresses the "people are stupid" perspectives, gets one in that sardonic mood for writing Dilbert knockoff cartoons, and so on.

But also--people look at things in different ways. One of the takeaways from 1900s psychology is that logical sense is far from the only sense we have to celebrate and apply to problem-solving, as humans.

So IMO ChatGPT really has the potential to push this dichotomy of authentically-expressive VS logically-expressive to where future development can be done in a more nuanced way.

That part I personally really like.

> Perhaps, like computers, our brains are also centralized and determined in outsmarting others to reach the next step.

I would say this effect impresses a given person or a group of people in a similar way to what I wrote above. It's a common facet of the tech world / techie personality, for example.

But it's also part of a broader scheme operating at a higher level. The need to express "wow how awesome this moment is" can also lead to an egoic battle/warfare mentality in very serious ways, unfortunately.

The logical thinkers with creative intuition naturally want to defend and demonstrate their gifts. So they start out with these subtle manipulations and say, imitate ChatGPT, like, "ah ha, so you think I can't show how illogical and ignorant your world really is?" And yet people with other gifts have their equivalent of that in fact, and so round and round we go.

(The logical-chaotic-neutral types also have this disturbing thing which happens to them, and which they beckon in turn, where structuralist-governance-types see the logic as a very personal insult and kind of go "I'm a special human being" (they are right, too, in a way) and react to the new mess on their hands by leveraging _their_ egoic power, and regulating in an exclusionary way, and in some ways filling out the homeless & prison population with more logical-chaotic-neutral types...)

> Being blindsided to AI can be frustrating for some when they eventually figure out it's a reflection and product of humanity. AI is one of us.

I see where you are going with this, but it also seems especially convergent toward a single model. I wonder: Why not base the exploration on one's openness to a multiple-model interpretation?

This is a unique thing humans can do with thoughts, hold contradictory thoughts and leverage the contradiction. It also is more likely to keep you on the right side of history, as analyses of AI and interpretations are improved (provided that more social aspect is important to you of course--if not I'd say the openness by itself is usually beneficial).

So: AI is one of us. It's also not--it should be treated as its own thing. It's terrible, it's flawed. It's amazing.

Anyway. I realize we are here to offer comment on your work, but I throw in some of my own thoughts in case they can help you a little from the outside.

Thanks for sharing your writeup, I look forward to reading more--