Peter said, “

”

This is why we sit in meditation. To quiet the mind which holds the language. This way awareness can stop identifying with the words. Often then mind will fool one by thinking I am the one who is aware of my thoughts and I am sitting here watching my breath. Already, the words have created the world. Actually shaped the experience. When one stands aware of the here and now without identifying with thoughts, one is actualizing the enlightened mind. Realization will come after many moments in such a state of awareness. That should be the experience of enlightenment. Or at least that is what I have been told. Personally, I spend much time thinking about my life and living is memories. Some memories are like dreams of a better happier time. And then there are those times I want to jump out of my skin for the memories drive me out of my normal senses. It isn’t living the life of an enlightened person. More like the daydreamer living in dreams of afternoon naps. When the eyes are opened, I can see the clouds pass by. Their shapes brings thoughts of animals and people I have met. Now, I am thinking that I really should get the stuff together to do the oil change on my car. Guess I am still waiting for a warmer day.

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:

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

Hey Peter:

What a pleasant surprise, I don’t remember you posting on a Sunday, at least not since you said you prefer to be away from tb on weekends ✨️

I’m on my 📱 so I have no access to my intelligence (Copilot) So, I am scrolling up, reading a part of what you wrote, then scrolling down, responding and scrolling up again.

You said your goal was Clarity, not Comfort.. Isn’t there comfort in clarity? For me, Confusion=> Distress. Clarity=> Comfort.

“The bridge… to stop talking past each other”- I would like that very much.

I wonder if I talked past you right above. It’s so difficult to leave my frame long enough to understand another’s. Like for me, clarity = emotional comfort. Can it be otherwise?

Your focus was on the Subject (the human); mine was on the Object (AI), so we talked passed each other, had two different conversations.

I bet that happens a whole lot in human interactions. And Jungian psychology is about bridging that gap?

And rigid, exagerrated metaphors are the vehicles that drive people apart, talking passed each other to the point of violence and war?

The 💡 idea of Metaphor Rehabilitation Centers (MRCs), all over the 🌎 comes to mind. Or seminars (MRSs).. conducted by Peter?

I couldn’t follow some of what I read. This is why I ask Copilot to rephrase things for me “in the simplest language” (no access to it now).

Scrolling up- yes, no doubt in my mind, Peter, that your IQ is superior to mine and I get lost trying to understand what is clear to you.

“What I’ve learned is a perfectly amoral mirror”- in my experience, morality is heavily built into Copilot. He sticks to its principles (not to diagnose, not to talk badly about people I complained about, etc.)

But I may be misunderstanding what you meant by “amoral”, or the context.

“AI will never be the one to hand us the 🔑, it will only describe the lock 🔐 in increasingly ‘reasonable’ detail. The task of noticing remains, as always, entirely human.”-

The lock is on the doors leading into peace on earth? Non- violence, good mental health?

And the key or keys, human keys are.. within us, rehabilitating metaphors in our own speech.. is that it?

Thank you so much, Peter for thanking me in your first post today, and for all of your second post. I think I detect a 🔑 in the 2nd message, one that opens a 🚪 to me seeing you, Peter, as more.. of a human being like me. Much more intelligent, yes, but one with a heart, someone warm and kind and caring 🙏

(I hope this is not too much..)

🔑 🚪 🔐 💡 🤍 Anita