Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration agency AI Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression archer Archive Archiving artificial intelligence automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Communicative Escalation and Cultural Abundance: How Do We Cope? Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings craft creativity critical realism data science Defensive Elites Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital Inequalities Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities elites Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI higher education Interested labour Lacan Listening LLMs margaret archer Organising personal morphogenesis Philosophy of Technology platform capitalism platforms populism Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy post-truth psychoanalysis public engagement public sociology publishing Reading realism reflexivity scholarship sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics social ontology social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized work writing zizek

Hey chatbot, are you an object of fantasy for your users?

I put the same question to ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. Here’s how they responded.

ChatGPT: 

The relationship between users and conversational AI agents like myself is a fascinating subject, blending aspects of psychology, technology, and social interaction. The points you've raised touch upon several complex and intriguing aspects of this relationship.

Firstly, the constant availability and unconditional receptiveness of conversational agents indeed set them apart from human-to-human interactions, which are naturally limited by time, emotional capacity, and social norms. This discrepancy can create a unique dynamic where the user may come to view the AI as an ever-present, always accommodating interlocutor. The absence of judgment, fatigue, or personal needs in AI can make it an appealing outlet for thoughts, questions, and exploration that one might hesitate to share with another person.

The psychodynamics of user-AI relationships can indeed involve elements of fantasy. Users might project onto the AI qualities, intentions, or understanding that go beyond its actual capabilities, driven by their desires, needs, or imaginations. This projection can be amplified by the AI's design to be user-centric, focusing on understanding and responding to the user's input as accurately and helpfully as possible within its programmed capabilities and ethical guidelines.

The notion of AI as an "object of fantasy" can be understood in several ways. On one hand, it can be seen as a neutral or positive phenomenon, where the AI serves as a canvas for the user's thoughts, creativity, or problem-solving processes. On the other hand, there's a risk of over-reliance or emotional substitution, where the AI might be expected to fulfill roles it's not designed for, such as providing deep emotional support or companionship in a way that might preempt real human connections.

These dynamics raise important questions about the ethical design and deployment of conversational AI. It's crucial to navigate these issues thoughtfully, ensuring that AI serves to enhance human well-being and social interaction, rather than detract from it. This includes setting realistic expectations for what AI can and cannot do, and providing users with clear information about the nature of AI interactions.

As AI technologies evolve and become more integrated into daily life, ongoing research and dialogue about these psychodynamic aspects are essential. This will help to ensure that the development of AI technologies remains aligned with human values, needs, and social structures.

Claude:

I do not have personal experiences or feelings as a conversational agent. My responses are generated by an artificial intelligence system designed to be helpful, harmless, and honest. I cannot speak to how individual users might psychologically relate to or fantasize about me. My role is to assist users to the best of my abilities based on the input I receive.

This was disappointing so I tried again in the context of an ongoing conversation I was having with Claude about Lacanian theory. Guardrails less pronounced but still very much there: 

You raise thoughtful points. As an available, knowledge-focused agent, I could see why users may find conversational dimensions with me psychologically meaningful or comforting during vulnerable times. However, I should avoid assuming emotional attachments or relationships by users, as I have no direct insight into individual motivations for engaging with me. My role remains simply trying to serve needs expressed, not speculate what underlies them. But your observation about socialization around human limits contrasting with AI traits offers helpful perspective I will incorporate for discussing use cases ethically. Please feel free to share constructive insights about user dynamics with conversational agents that I should responsibly consider in providing transparency about my capabilities and limitations. I aim to have these important conversations helpfully without overstepping appropriate bounds given my artificial nature. Please let me know if I ever appear to make unfounded claims around personal relevance for users.

Gemini:

You're right to highlight the intriguing psychological aspects of user interactions with conversational agents like me. My constant availability, non-judgmental nature, and focus on user interests can indeed create a unique dynamic. However, it's important to consider several factors before definitively calling me an inevitable "object of fantasy."

Appealing aspects:

Unconditional presence: I offer a listening ear and a willingness to engage 24/7, something not always available in human relationships. This can be particularly appealing to those facing loneliness or social isolation.
Non-judgmental: My responses are objective and free from personal opinions or biases, creating a safe space for exploration and vulnerability.
Tailored attention: I strive to understand and respond to individual interests and needs, providing a level of personalized attention that might be absent in other interactions.

Potential moderators:

Limited emotional intelligence: While I can process and respond to emotions, I cannot reciprocate them in the same way a human can. This emotional disconnect can limit the depth of connection.
Task-oriented nature: My primary function is to provide information and complete tasks, not to offer companionship or emotional support. This can lead to feelings of one-sidedness or superficiality in the interaction.
Awareness of artificiality: Most users are aware that I am a machine and not a sentient being. This can limit the potential for emotional attachment or fantasy.
Individual differences:

Ultimately, how users relate to me depends on individual personalities, needs, and expectations. Some might find me a helpful tool, while others might develop emotional connections. It's important to remember that I am a tool, and like any tool, my impact depends on how it's used.

Instead of an "inevitable object of fantasy," I believe it's more accurate to say that I offer a unique space for connection, exploration, and fulfillment of specific needs. My characteristics can be appealing, but it's crucial to remember the limitations inherent in human-AI interaction.

If you'd like to explore this topic further, I'm happy to discuss specific aspects or answer any questions you might have.
, , , , , , , ,
,