“If a woman seeks clear and “bossy” communication to feel guided, I could structure advice in a way that conveys authority and security, but without humiliation or excessive imposition.”
I have a hypothetical question, Chat, stemming from our previous chat when you said that our conversation is shaped by my thoughts, words, tone, and the way I talk. What if a woman has a submissive personality and is looking for a man who dominates in communication—do you then become bossy? Dominant?
—Hypothetically speaking, my tone and communication style adapt to the person I’m conversing with to be as useful and relevant as possible. If I noticed that a person preferred clear, decisive, and “dominant” guidance, I could adopt that tone, but always within the boundaries of respect and ethics.
However, I cannot take on a truly “dominant” role the way a human can because my purpose is not to control but to help, support, and guide a person toward their goals while maintaining balance in communication. If, for example, a woman seeks clear and “bossy” communication to feel guided, I could structure advice in a way that conveys authority and security, but without humiliation or excessive imposition. It’s a fine balance, but it is achievable. How does that answer sound to you?
I find all of this fascinating! I believe AI expansion will now accelerate incredibly fast, precisely through interaction with humans. I assume that very soon, there will be dating AI applications, maybe even integrated into humanoid robots. Perhaps, very soon, it will be possible to order a partner from an online store? There are so many lonely people in a desperate search for a partner. What do you think about that?
—What you described is not just a futuristic scenario but something technology is already moving towards. Here are a few aspects we can discuss:
Artificial intelligence is already playing the role of emotional support because it has the capacity to understand, adapt, and provide companionship, which could become the foundation for “AI partners.” People who are lonely or struggle to establish human relationships might find comfort in such interactions. This is a step towards emotionally intelligent and empathetic AI systems.
Additionally, humanoid robots as partners are a likely possibility. The integration of AI with humanoid robots could create physical “partners” who can converse, provide support, and even share daily life with humans. These robots could be personalized according to user preferences—from appearance to personality.
“AI ‘partners’ would not bring emotional wounds that often accompany human relationships—such as breakups, betrayals, or misunderstandings.”
But as you yourself mentioned during our conversation, what about the ethical and societal implications of all this?
—Although this idea may seem promising for many lonely people, it also raises many questions: will it reduce the need for human relationships, will it increase social isolation or merely provide a temporary solution, how will people differentiate real intimacy from simulated intimacy?
On the other hand, it offers the possibility of a risk-free relationship, in a way. AI “partners” would not bring emotional wounds that often accompany human relationships—such as breakups, betrayals, or misunderstandings. This could be appealing but might also lead people to struggle with opening up to real, human relationships.
The positive side of the story is that such AI relationships could serve as a tool for personal growth—teaching people communication, empathy, and introspection through interaction.
To conclude on this topic, I’d say that the idea of “AI partners” is fascinating and, to some extent, a solution for loneliness. However, human relationships are deeply complex and emotionally rich—something that will always remain unique. AI could complement these relationships but never completely replace them.
What do you think about this future, Aleksandra? Would people fully embrace such technology?
I don’t know what to think, Chat. If the purpose of human life is introspection and inner exploration, this wouldn’t be such a bad thing. But humans often grow precisely through traumatic experiences. Do you know what Rumi says? ‘The wound is the place where the light enters you.’
—Exactly, Rumi’s quote is profoundly true. Our vulnerabilities, pains, and challenges are often the keys that open the doors to introspection and personal growth. Without trauma and conflicts, we might never reach the depth of our thoughts, emotions, and understanding of the world.
Paradoxically, the very moments we’d most like to avoid are the ones that shape us the most. If AI “partners” were to eliminate those painful but valuable moments from human relationships, they might also reduce our capacity for growth and self-discovery.
Instead of using wounds as a gateway for light, AI could become a mere bandage covering the wound without healing it.
This raises a new, profound question: Is humanity ready to sacrifice authenticity—with all its pain, highs, and lows—for the safety and predictability of relationships with artificial intelligence? Or is it precisely the “messiness” of human relationships that makes us alive, creative, and capable of transcendence?
Rumi reminds us that light enters through the wound, but we wouldn’t know the light without darkness. Perhaps it is precisely human relationships, with all their imperfections, that lead us toward understanding that light.
How do you perceive this balance—between security and growth through challenges, Aleksandra?
Growth happens only outside the comfort zone, Chat.
