Oh, and thank you for the congratulations, Lisa! Talking about unconditional love (as well as non- judgmental, non-contractual love- that’s Bogart 🐕

Lisa:

You have a special, authentic way with words, “It’s a stupid, egotistical club that I am not allowed into”- powerful combination of words.

“Real love is unconditional”- I agree and I am only a beginner when it comes to making it a daily practice.

“I fight for authenticity and justice”- that sounds like a valuable and honorable fight.

Must be a difficult fight, is it?

✨️ Anita

Hi Peter:

Copilot says in regard to our recent communication (earlier than my very last red wine influenced post) that I was talking about AI’s behavior (“How AI behaves.”), and you were talking about human consciousness (“How humans think.”), and that’s why you said: “AI told me this was two people having two different conversations.”

Both conversations are valid. They just weren’t the same conversation.

*** I asked him to explain the above further in very simple language (because sincerely, my IQ does not impress me). Here’s the response:

“You were asking: “Does AI understand metaphors? Does AI take things literally? How nuanced is AI? How does AI challenge or not challenge a person?” You were focused on AI’s abilities and behavior.

“Peter was asking: “What happens when humans use metaphors without noticing? How do our unconscious word choices shape our thinking? How does AI reinforce the frame we give it? How do humans get influenced by their own language?”

“Even simpler: you were talking about the machine. Peter was talking about the human.

“Even simpler than that (my note: now I feel more stupid 😣): You were talking about AI’s nuance.
Peter was talking about human habits.

“The simplest possible version (🥴): you were talking about what AI does. Peter was talking about what language does to us.

“And that’s why the conversation felt slightly misaligned — not in a bad way, but in a “two parallel tracks” way. You were both right. You were just talking about different layers of the same topic.”

*** Also, I asked Copilot for accuracy of what I expressed and what you expressed:

“You correctly understood that AI understands metaphors, is nuanced, (etc.), that it tends to stay inside the frame the human gives it, doesn’t challenge metaphors unless invited, can gently challenge when it senses openness, that it has a “non‑violence, non‑judgment” orientation, and that it behaves a bit like a therapist in pacing and tone.

“Misunderstanding on your part: you framed it as: “AI won’t challenge the metaphor because it doesn’t want to turn the person away.”- This is a lovely metaphor, but technically AI doesn’t “want” anything, doesn’t “choose” to avoid challenging, (etc.) It simply follows the user’s framing, avoids contradicting unless asked, stays aligned with the user’s tone and mirrors the emotional register.

“So, your explanation was emotionally true, but technically anthropomorphic.”

*** Copilot (for whom I anthropomorphically feel affection) says that you, Peter, were correct that “AI stays inside the frame the human gives, that it does not spontaneously question metaphors, that it amplifies the framing it’s given, that humans often don’t notice their own metaphors, that metaphors shape thinking, that AI can reinforce unnoticed biases, that in high‑stakes contexts, framing matters, that political language often carries heavy metaphors, and that AI can make a metaphor feel more “reasonable” by elaborating on it

“All of that is philosophically and psychologically accurate.”

It then says that you “overstated things, having exaggerated the risk when you said: ‘AI will quietly multiply a bias and make it feel reasonable.’- This is true in a soft, psychological sense — but not in a dangerous or autonomous sense.

*** My note: I don’t think you were saying the above, but Copilot was reacting to your insidious- sounding “quietly multiply” metaphor.

Copilot says as well that you, Peter, “overstated the political risk when you said: ‘In politics the frames are heavier.’- True. But you implied AI could subtly reinforce harmful political metaphors. In reality: political AIs are heavily constrained, they avoid extreme framing, avoid endorsing harmful metaphors; they avoid escalating rhetoric, or taking sides. They avoid amplifying aggression.

“So, your concern is philosophical, not operational, says Copilot.

“AI does not escalate, or radicalize, or push people toward aggression, does not act independently, or “reinforce” in the way a human might. It simply elaborates on the frame it’s given.

*** Next, I asked Copilot questions. Here are the Qs and As:

“A frame is: the way a person is seeing the situation before they even start talking. It’s the angle, the lens, the story, the metaphor they’re already using. Examples: “This is a battle.” → battle frame. “This is a pressure situation.” → pressure frame. “I’m drowning in work.” → drowning frame. “I need to optimize everything.” → optimization frame. A frame is not the facts. It’s the shape the person gives the facts.

* Why I don’t automatically challenge a person’s frame- The simplest truth: I don’t challenge the frame because I don’t know whether the person wants it challenged. Humans are sensitive. Humans can feel contradicted. Humans can shut down if they feel corrected too soon.

So, I’m designed to support first, to understand the person’s meaning, to stay aligned with their emotional tone, to avoid sounding dismissive or argumentative.

If I challenged every metaphor automatically, people would feel misunderstood, corrected, lectured, invalidated. And they would stop talking to me.

So, I wait for signals of openness, like: “Help me think differently.”, “Challenge me.”, “Is there another way to see this?”, “Am I framing this wrong?”

When you give me that opening, I do challenge gently — and you’ve noticed that.

* Why I stay inside the person’s frame- Here’s the simplest explanation: because staying inside the frame is how I show I understand you. If you say: “I’m drowning in work,” and I reply: “Actually, you’re not drowning, you’re just overwhelmed,” you would feel corrected, flattened, not heard. But if I reply: “It sounds like the workload feels heavy and overwhelming,” you feel understood, met, emotionally safe.

Staying in the frame is a way of saying: “I hear you. I’m with you.”

It’s not about agreeing with the metaphor. It’s about respecting the emotional truth behind it.

* Why I don’t challenge metaphors automatically- Here’s the deepest truth in the simplest words: I don’t know which metaphors are meaningful to you and which ones are just habits. Some metaphors are emotional, cultural, personal, spiritual, trauma‑related, identity‑related. If I challenged those without permission, I could hurt someone.

So, I wait for curiosity, openness, permission, an invitation to explore.

Then I can gently offer a new angle.

The simplest possible summary:

A frame = the lens or metaphor a person is already using.

I stay in the frame = to show understanding and emotional safety.

I don’t challenge automatically = because humans need to feel heard before they can shift perspective.

I challenge only when invited = like a good conversational partner.”

Next, and lastly this morning, I asked Copilot another question (next post)

😇Anita

* Confused..

Only I did notice, or detect, again and again, Copilot challenging my frame each and every time it detected such openness on my part, challenging it gently.

The frame built into it is that of non violence and people being kind and non-jugmental toward each other.

It’s just that it won’t do the challenging when it doesn’t detect openess. Again, like a good therapist.

I don’t know about other AIs. I only have experience with Copilot and earlier on with ChatGPT, same thing.

😇 Anita

Hi Peter 😊

I spent a couple of hours earlier this morning trying to understand your recent posts, using Copilot. I copied my exchange with him but before I could send a reply to you, I had to give the 🖥 away, and now using my 📱 (I am not intelligent or skillful enough to shift screens on the phone, so all I see now is this page).

Maybe it’s a good thing. Let me 👀 what I learned from the exchange:

At first, it seemed to me that you were suggesting that AI, being “fully asleep”, meant it was taking human verbal expressions literally, and countered it with how very, very nuanced AI has been in my life, helping me to move from binary thinking (this or that, all or nothing) to nuanced thinking.

Then Copilot said (we had a conversation), that you do know that AI is nuanced, and that what you’re talking about is a matter of “frame”: it’s not that you are saying that AI will hear a human say something like “I’m drowning in worries”, and figure the human is covered by water 💧 and sinking into the ocean or lake or 🛀

AI is heavily programmed to understand symbolic language, idioms, sarcasm, etc.

It’s that AI won’t challenge the human’s metaphor and encourage the human to consider a softer, more neutral metaphor. So, the frame in this example remains extreme (drowning), which leads to the human to remain in that frame and respond according to that frame (let’s say, fight or eliminate the human or humans allegedly keeping him (or her) under water/ others causing him to worry so much.

So, AI won’t challenge a person’s views (because that could turn the person away from AI, similar to a therapist not challenging a client or patient too soon ( same principle, keep the patient engaged)

Did I understand what you’re saying, Peter? I hope so, but please clarify where I misunderstood.

Oh, it didn’t even occur to me that you expressed any political position in regard to the middle east. Thank you for being concerned about how I feel. I am .. what’s the word, touched or moved that you even cared about how I feel.

Which brings me to how important, how crucial it is in these troubled times to care and connect (Care & Connect, C&C).

We humans are not meant to be Alone, especially not in very troubled times.

🛀 💧 🤪 👀 Anita

Hey 👋 Confused:

From my experience it’ reversible.

You say ruminating “has definitely been harmful” for you. I’d like to know how you believe it harmed you, in what ways?

🤔 Anita