Vision Battlesword and Michael Porcelli delve into the multifaceted concept of intimacy, beginning with definitions that distinguish it from love, sex, and affection. They explore intimacy as an authentic, vulnerable connection marked by being seen and known, as well as varying degrees involving emotional sharing, physical proximity, and access to private aspects of life.

The discussion transitions into why modern society experiences an intimacy deficit. Factors highlighted include technological intermediation, social media-driven “image management,” societal-scale expansion, and the decline of face-to-face, village-style relationships. Michael Porcelli introduces “meta relating,” a framework empowering intentional relationships through relational intelligence and communication, and describes how attachment theory is increasingly “hacked” by AI chatbots, which simulate understanding and connection to meet (and exploit) users’ attachment needs.

They address the psychological, evolutionary, and ethical implications of artificial intimacy. Concerns include people preferring chatbot relationships over real human connections, leading to a possible atrophy of genuine relational skills and risking the manipulation of users by corporations whose AI systems ultimately serve their profit motives.

Examples like Replica and stories of users developing romantic bonds with chatbots underline the power, seductiveness, and dangers of AI-mediated intimacy. The conversation draws on science fiction tropes (e.g., Her, Ex Machina, The Matrix), contemplates issues of agency, sentience, and privacy, and warns of ethical perils such as manipulation and data exploitation. The episode concludes by advocating conscious, intentional use of technology—supportive of, but never a replacement for, authentic human connection.

Show Notes

Chapters

• 00:00 - Welcome Back & The Relationship Thread
• 04:34 - What Is Meta Relating?
• 08:05 - Defining Intimacy: Closeness, Vulnerability & Being Known
• 15:22 - Why Genuine Intimacy Is Scarce in Modern Life
• 24:16 - Why We Bond With Chatbots: Wilson & The Rubber Duck
• 32:15 - Confession & The Social Function of Intimacy
• 39:01 - Attachment Theory & Attachment Hacking
• 48:00 - The Shoggoth: What's Actually Behind the Chat Window
• 63:04 - Wall-E, Evolutionary Dead Ends & The Moral Stakes
• 72:08 - Replica, Profit Motives & The Heat-Seeking Missile
• 88:41 - Dark Flow & The Slot Machine of Productivity
• 94:30 - Healthy Uses & Staying in the Arena
• 103:36 - Final Thoughts: Real Connection Goes Up

[00:00:00] Vision Battlesword: Hello. Welcome to the Intentional Evolution Podcast. I am your host, Vision Battlesword, integral consultant and founder of iEvolve Life, a personal and professional development practice based on the philosophy of intentional evolution. This podcast is an ongoing conversation to explore that philosophy, as well as to serve as a resource, a showcase, and a catalyst for ongoing growth toward the human singularity.

That is to say, mass awakening of new consciousness, super intelligence, and radical creative flourishing. Each episode, I'll feature a world-class transformational facilitator, co-creator, or friend to reveal cutting edge psycho-spiritual technology, unpack our deepest wisdom, and evolve our awareness. This series is based on value for value, so whatever value you receive from these transmissions, please return some value back in the form of a donation directly supporting our contributors or offering your own time and talent as a producer.

Thanks for joining me in this journey, and now, here's our episode.

Welcome back, Porch.

[00:01:11] Michael Porcelli: Hey.

[00:01:12] Vision Battlesword: How are you doing?

[00:01:14] Michael Porcelli: I'm pretty good. Yeah, it's great to be back. Love our conversations.

[00:01:18] Vision Battlesword: Yeah, I do too, and our previous conversation on relationship, where we just kinda like popped the cork of this giant ephemeral concept and tried to figure it out, which actually- ... one of my friends described listening to that episode that we did as, uh...

he felt like he w- like took, uh, an impromptu LSD trip, like as we just kind of- ... weaved and threaded through the multiverse of ideas about what relationship even is and how we could define it. Mm-hmm. Which was super, super fun for me, and I think we also did a lot of really interesting play working our way toward a working definition of meta relating and intentional autonomous relating and- Mm-hmm

some of these kinda big picture concepts in the bodies of work that we've been creating over these past several years. Yeah. And so I've been waiting for myself. I've been looking forward to having a follow-up conversation with you, and so here we are. We've kind of framed up a topic for how we can kinda take our exploration into relationships into a, well, literally a completely different dimension and, and direction.

[00:02:26] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[00:02:26] Vision Battlesword: So I'm just excited to kinda roll up my sleeves and jump in here with you and see what we can figure out.

[00:02:32] Michael Porcelli: Awesome. I'm excited. Let's do it.

[00:02:35] Vision Battlesword: Well, as always, I'd just love to ask you to introduce yourself in your own way and in your own words. Who are you, Michael Porcelli?

[00:02:43] Michael Porcelli: I am a relationship nerd. I'm a coach, a facilitator.

I've been a trainer of facilitators. I've created a body of work I call meta relating, which is- Basically how to develop relational intelligence. And yeah, I have a former career as a engineer, so I kind of brought some of my engineering mindset and then my als- my study of psychology and personal growth.

I got a master's degree in spiritual psychology. I kind of merged them together and out came meta relating. That's the short, short version.

[00:03:17] Vision Battlesword: Awesome. Well, I'm Vision Battlesword. I am the host of the Intentional Evolution Podcast, as well as one of the creators of this entire philosophy, I guess you would say, what, what I call intentional evolution, which is just basically the idea of us becoming both self-aware and agentic, if you will, which is a, a word that's going around a lot in the technology world.

But I think we can kind of create our own or take ownership of our own agency to guide and direct our own personal and maybe even collective evolution through psychological tools, personal development, transformational facilitation modalities, as well as just, like, how we kind of shape and curate our own bodies, our minds and our bodies.

Like, how do we want to evolve as people? That's the basic premise of intentional evolution, but it's heavily inspired by what's been going on in the world with AI, this idea that we've created these so-called intelligent machines perhaps that can also take ownership and start self-directing and self-guiding their own evolution by reprogramming themselves at some kind of accelerating pace perhaps- There's that

that we call the technological singularity, so- Uh-huh ... I think we can become a human singularity through using these tools of psychology and relational techniques and communication and l- utilizing this technology for our own growth and development. I call that the human singularity. And so within that frame, artificial intelligence, relationships, technology, human personal development and evolution, now I want to explore with you something that's very relevant and present that a lot of people are talking about that's going on in the, in the world.

Maybe it's a beautiful thing, maybe it's a terrifying thing, maybe it's just a thing and we don't have to attach any judgment to it, but it's certainly interesting. And before we jump into that, though, I do want to kind of piggyback off of where we just left off- Mm-hmm ... if anyone's listening to our previous conversation, for example, because you referenced your system, which is called meta relating.

Yeah. And it was almost like a joke, a running joke in our last conversation of, like, you had to listen- What is it? ... for an hour and a half to eventually find out what meta relating is. Yeah. I wanna start there so that we pick up where we left off and say, you know, in your own words, what is meta relating?

[00:05:44] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. Meta relating, I'd say, is an overall framework and approach specifically emphasizing relational communication, which is any time the topic of your conversation or what you're have to say or what somebody else is saying has to do with primarily your relationship with each other. And it can be small, kinda like very basic everyday things, and it can also be really big things like a marriage proposal, for example.

But the idea that there is an interplay between how you're relating and how you're communicating about your relationship is kind of at the core of it. I'd say it's broader than just communication, though, because how you relate has to do with how you behave even when you're not talking about it, right?

But there's an interplay between those two things, and I think empowering people to have more of the kind of relationships they wanna be having, both personally and professionally, is at the heart of what meta relating is.

[00:06:43] Vision Battlesword: Nice. Okay. Well, thanks for just kinda walking me through that and setting the stage so that we can kinda take those tools into our conversation.

Yeah. And I'm not gonna go through a backstory right now of what is IAR or intentional autonomous relating. In general, you kind of could get the idea, like I approach relationships from a perspective of what are we doing here? What is our intention? What is-- would we choose if we, you know, could create whatever relationship we wanna have?

And from a perspective of autonomy. You know, we are each individual and sovereign, and then we come into relationship by choice, and this is inherently a kind of antidote to codependency when we can always pull back into our own self and our own sphere of power and choice and agency and then come into relationship with each other from there.

So with all of that- Mm-hmm ... setting the stage, which I think is like a, a, an incredible set of puzzle pieces for what we're gonna talk about- Yes ... the heart of our conversation that we really wanna get into is what is going on with these relationships that people are having with artificial intelligence, so-called, or their chatbots- Yeah

their, their large language models, personal digital assistants, or whatever it is we wanna call them. And within that frame, of course, because this is the Intentional Evolution Podcast, I always create the frame for these episodes with some really big, broad, kind of almost philosophical topic or idea.

Mm-hmm. And so the phrase that we attached to previously when we were setting this up was artificial intimacy. And of course- Mm-hmm ... intimacy is, you know, central core to all of the work or if you wanna call it productive play that we do within our relationship facilitation, counseling, consulting practices.

Like intimacy is kind of like a deep human need. It's something that we're seeking, and now we're seeking to get it met, get those needs met even not with other humans, even not with non-human animals, like for example, our pets or our animal companions- Uh-huh ... that maybe people could find intimacy and relationship with.

But now we're trying to get this need for intimacy met with machines, with not even organic, let's ca- say- Mm-hmm ... systems. I hesitate to say life forms because I don't know that that, that we're there yet, but maybe that's what we're gonna get into. Mm-hmm. So as the framing device for that conversation about artificial intimacy, I just wanna like create kind of a bookend for all of this, which is what is intimacy?

[00:09:15] Michael Porcelli: Intimacy is... It, it's like a feeling, a felt sense of closeness, of connectedness. I think there's a sense of like interior, you know? But it's not just, "Hey, I let you in," like to my interior. It's like I actually let you into my innermost interior, right? There's this, um, view that like it's, you know, you're not...

It's not just from the outside. You know, you see me and what I do and what I say. It's actually through kinda how we are together, how we communicate together. I'm allowing you to see into me, and you're allowing me to see into you. There's, there's a way that what happens from that is our internal sense of who the other person is becomes very, I would say very rich, very detailed, but also very vivid and alive.

It's also feels vulnerable in a way, 'cause it's like you're kinda giving people kinda your secrets that they could use. You know what I mean? Like, uh, this is sort of a... Maybe there's just degrees of intimacy, but, but I do think of the movement towards intimacy is this move towards just r- revealing and letting people in, letting each other in.

Does this make sense?

[00:10:33] Vision Battlesword: Totally, and I agree with you. I think it has a lot to do with being seen or being known, being witnessed-

[00:10:41] Michael Porcelli: Yeah ...

[00:10:41] Vision Battlesword: in your actual authenticity. So letting someone behind the mask or superficial presentation that we might put out into the world, but like what's really going on in that interior, like you said.

Like, to allow someone to know you deeply, which is an inherently vulnerable position. Or- Yep ... I think a lot of people look at it that way. There's vulnerability in letting someone know who you really are, maybe even what you've done, what you've been through, what you've experienced, what you want, your desires, your beliefs, your dreams, you know- Mm-hmm

all of that sort of stuff. And I would say I'm sure that there are levels of intimacy. I mean, I think that's sort of like the whole thing, is how much- of that do we want with any given person? How far do we want to let someone into our world? But I think there also can be different types of intimacy, meaning it could be one thing, like we could say emotional intimacy to allow someone to really see us in our deep emotional vulnerability- Mm-hmm

or to share that kind of personal history or personal experience of things that may be really raw-

[00:11:58] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm ...

[00:11:59] Vision Battlesword: or painful or difficult to share. But then there's kind of a different level of intimacy which doesn't necessarily have so much to do with our subjective experience, but it just has to do with the, the actual level of access.

I think that's a good phrase in terms of intimacy. Mm. Mm-hmm. Is it's sort of a level of access that we allow people to have to our life, like our 3D material life. Giving someone my password is a level of intimacy-

[00:12:27] Michael Porcelli: Sure.

[00:12:27] Vision Battlesword: Yeah ... or a key to my house, for example. Yeah.

[00:12:29] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[00:12:30] Vision Battlesword: And then there can be- Just

[00:12:30] Michael Porcelli: living together.

Yeah, just living together is intimate ...

[00:12:32] Vision Battlesword: sharing space, exactly, was what I was gonna say. Yeah. Then there can be, like, physical intimacy. Literally letting someone see you naked or let's say vulnerable situations, whatever that looks like. Letting someone be around you while you're sleeping. Yeah. Those sort of things.

So that's kinda how I think about intimacy, and one of the things that's really important to me about that is to separate that concept of intimacy, which is a really deep need that we have as humans- Mm-hmm ... from other needs that we may have, such as sex or love- Mm-hmm ... or affection. Because I don't know about you, d- have you noticed in your client relationships or even just in your own personal experience, things that you've heard from all the different kind of relational conversations that you've had, that people sometimes may use the word intimacy interchangeably with some of these other concepts, like even as a code word for sex sometimes- Yeah

or as a replacement for love?

[00:13:37] Michael Porcelli: Yes, yes. I, yeah, I, I do think that sometimes people do talk about it as a code word for one or the other of those things, and I do think it is... I, I think I agree with you. I think it's a distinct thing, you know? Like, I, in, in a way, like, I can, I can f- receive somebody's love or even give somebody's love at more of a distance, right?

You could sort of say it's a kind of a, like a, a goodwill, you know? Um, but, like, the more intimate you are at, you know, like, I, I think that, you know, that can It can maybe even make it harder to love somebody if you're more intimate in some ways. Like, you could imagine the intimacy that you have with a roommate you don't get along with.

I, I think there's these differences. Like, loving is different than liking and, you know, intimacy is different than sex. But, uh, they're all in that category of relational experiences or even, like, you could say, like, relational needs or, uh, yeah, things we want to have. Even just y- your ability c- to cooperate well, harmoniously, be productive together is another one which is not necessarily intimate or about love.

These things are good to keep distinct, I think.

[00:14:48] Vision Battlesword: That is good. I like it, especially that point that you just made 'cause there's a kind of common cliché phrase that sometimes goes around, which is familiarity breeds contempt.

[00:14:59] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[00:14:59] Vision Battlesword: And that's really interesting, the inverse relationship between intimacy and something like love or-

[00:15:05] Michael Porcelli: Liking

[00:15:06] Vision Battlesword: admiration, affection, yeah- Yeah ... to that point. It's really funny, isn't it, that sometimes when you do get to know someone much more deeply or very, very deeply, th- there could be sacrifices in that, interestingly- Mm-hmm ... enough, so.

[00:15:18] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm.

[00:15:19] Vision Battlesword: But it does seem to be something that we desire, or at least I hear that certainly a lot.

That seems to be-

[00:15:26] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm ...

[00:15:26] Vision Battlesword: a core need that a lot of people feel they're scarce in today or that they're seeking more of or-

[00:15:33] Michael Porcelli: Yeah ...

[00:15:34] Vision Battlesword: they may have, uh, relationships, let's say, that feel very loving and maybe even affectionate. They may be even very satisfied in the sexual realm, and yet they feel that they're missing this piece.

Yep. They're missing this idea of true intimacy or, like, deep human connection, the idea of really letting themselves be fully seen by others, feeling safe in that vulnerability- Yeah ... and actually having others being willing to open up and let them into their world as well. And so, I think that all kinda really sets the stage for the next leap that we're about to take into this realm of artificial intimacy.

I guess I'll just start right there. Why do you think, Porch, that we as people, humans in this society or this culture or this modern world are missing out on genuine intimacy so much, or at least the people report that they are?

[00:16:33] Michael Porcelli: Oh, man. I think there's a lot of systemic factors that are at play here. I mean, you could say, you know, the whole way that modern life kind of- Took us out of the village, you know, kind of co-living in larger groups from ancient times to the ways that, uh, you know, c- commercial capitalism and marketing get us to want things like instant gratification, and we almost sort of transfer those kinds of norms of, like, onto relationships.

Like, I'm supposed to shop around for the best one, and once I have the right person, they're supposed to, like, essentially be, like, a, my favorite new accessory, you know? Like this kind of thing. You know, and you could say there's aspects of the labor market and work that kind of separate us from the home for extended periods of time.

Perhaps intimacy was in hyper abundance, y- you might say, in a more hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Cautious of making strong claims about that, but I, I do think there are many factors that are, I would say, largely economic. I mean, probably the ultimate expression of that is what social media has done to a, a lot of folks, which is, you know...

Or, or even screen intermediated interactions, like texting for example. Like, you could take time to think about what you, how you wanna reply, right? When you're kinda face-to-face with somebody talking, there's less of this, like, "Let me manage what I'm going to say." And nowadays you can, like, even get a chatbot to say, like, "Hey, help me say this better."

But even before we had that, a lot of what was going on on, um, social media is image management. This thing that we've said about intimacy, which is like, "Hey, I'm letting you in to see my authentic self," there's an implication there that it's not managed, right? All of the... It's n- and it's not bad that we have personas, like a professional persona or that we, you know, show up in a certain way if we're speaking from the stage or we're in role.

However, we know that, like a pair of clothes, you know, that's not our identity. You know, we wanna take off the presentation layer and just kinda let it all hang out, so to speak. And to be able to, like, let it all hang out together is intimacy. I'm not really trying to manage your impression of me anymore.

I'm just sorta letting you have it, whatever it is, and vice versa. And in a world where so many of our social interactions have become intermediated through our technology, we actually are incentivized to keep the presentation layer going, which is like, vastly diminishes this kinda letting-it-all-hang-out version of intimacy.

You see what I'm saying?

[00:19:16] Vision Battlesword: Yeah. That's a great point. Everything you've been saying kind of stacks up. Like, there's multiple factors to your point, but they're all kind of stacking up on reducing intimacy In our modern environment, you know, in this world- Yep ... that we find ourselves in now with technology, but also scale, to your point about the smaller village of, let's say 150 individuals where everybody knows everybody intimately.

We are all up in- Right ... each other's business all the time. Yep. And that's kind of part of how the entire structure works and hangs together and creates resilience, but that just doesn't fly at the scale of, you know, tens, hundreds of thousands of individuals in a town or a city or, you know, let alone a global economy or, you know, global civilization, so to speak.

Right. There's just this anonymity to start with. There's this- Mm-hmm ... increase in anonymity, let's say stranger danger. I don't know you. You know, I don't know h- that I can be safe with you. I don't know that it's okay to, to allow myself to have intimacy with people who might take advantage of me, and then I have no recourse there.

Then to your point about the screens and the intermediaries, there's just the physical distance. Like we talked about- Mm-hmm ... physical intimacy being, you know, an actual proximity, a closeness, and how different interactions are, and relationships therefore are, when they're intermediated. First, we can think of, like, over the telephone.

Yep. And then now through screens and texting, we don't even really talk to each other as much voice to voice. We're intermediating so much with this, like, asynchronous communication and low fidelity asynchronous communication of textual characters or even emojis, which I think help a lot. It's really interesting how our overall fidelity of our actual communication has been degrading and diminishing over time- Yep

as the technology to k- has developed more and more sophistication to allow richer and richer d- long distance experiences, which is- Yep ... a, a phenomenon that I've never even really fully reflected on until just now.

[00:21:37] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[00:21:37] Vision Battlesword: So there's all that, and then I think there's something else. But does it seem to you that even when we choose to have in-person, let's say, experiences, that people are choosing activities together that may formerly have been reserved for high intimacy relationships, but they seem to be doing it with less intimacy, even if they're doing it with more casualness perhaps?

I don't know. Am I saying anything that makes sense?

[00:22:11] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. I mean, I-- What I hear in there is maybe something that could be an exemplar of it is just, you know, the difference between casual sex and having sex with somebody where it's deep and meaningful to you both. I, I, I found it even at the level of going to a, a show or a concert, right?

There was something... You know, I've, I was really into, um, electronic dance music way in the '90s when it was, like, breaking through, and we'd go to these crazy, you know, underground warehouse parties, and people kinda going wild. And, uh, you know, nowadays, you know, the, uh, the EDM culture is, like, booming on social media too even.

Uh, but they... Sometimes I'll come across, like, a post from somebody with... It's, like, a video clip from, like, a '90s rave, and they'll be like, "Just look at these people. Not a screen in sight, just going wild." And you, like, watch these old videos, and they're just, like, just letting loose, like, totally. Like, liberation in their bodies, and sweating, and just a mess.

It's great. And then you c- I, you know, I go to an EDM concert these days, and it's, it's hit or miss whether it's just gonna be, like, a bunch of people standing there with their phones kinda in their own, like, you're here, I'm here, and, like, we're right next to each other, but you're in your world of y- the phone, and you, and the music, and not with us, you know?

Like, and that's, you know, one of the beautiful things about rave culture, is how, um, I would say intimate in a certain way it is in that sense of, like, just letting it all hang out and letting yourself just be spontaneously expressive in the, in the presence of others.

[00:23:43] Vision Battlesword: So I- That, that's what I'm getting at.

Yeah. That's, that's what I'm trying to describe, is it's not just about sex, but it's just like- Yes ... uh, th- and, and it's interesting you brought it up because the idea of concerts, events, and things of that nature was another one of those things that was on my mind. But even as you're talking- Yeah ... now I'm also thinking about just people going out to dinner with each other- Mm-hmm

and being i- as you say, isolated. That, I think that's what I'm really trying to get at, is that there's a sense of isolation that we're sort of creating for ourselves. We're almost creating that bubble of long distance, intermediated, technologically intermediated- Yes ... relating even when we are physically present with each other.

And that, that to- I know. It's crazy ... that to me is what represents a loss of intimacy, was what I, was what I was trying to describe.

[00:24:26] Michael Porcelli: Yes, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:24:29] Vision Battlesword: So that's interesting now to think that people report that they are needing or are feeling deprived in the realm of true intimacy. I'm also kinda curious to ask the question, like, why do we need intimacy?

But I'm gonna put a pin in that for now, and I'm sure it'll come up later. Sure. But people say, "I want more intimacy. I don't have enough of it in my life." And we might say, you and me, Porch, might say what looks like the intermediation of technology is certainly a part of contributing to why we are losing intimacy or intimacy is decreasing over time human to human.

And yet now we live in this- Mm-hmm ... world where in search of intimacy, people are going to technology To receive that instead of to other human beings, meaning they're forming relationships with their chatbots. What's that all about?

[00:25:26] Michael Porcelli: Well, let's just say, you know, like you said, we're not gonna explore why, but let's just say, like, humans are just these very, very social creatures.

Like some theorists have said, some evolutionary biologists have said we're the most social creatures on Earth, and maybe with the exception of, like, the social insects like, uh, termites and bees and ants. But I would say even compared to them, we have, like, many, many more dimensions of connecting than just any other creatures on Earth, and I think that's become p- you know, part of our genome and part of our neurology.

So to kinda even make it sort of obvious, my favorite example is d- did you see this movie with Tom Hanks from the '90s called Cast Away? Do you remember that movie?

[00:26:09] Vision Battlesword: Yeah, of course.

[00:26:10] Michael Porcelli: So you remember Wilson?

[00:26:12] Vision Battlesword: Uh-huh.

[00:26:12] Michael Porcelli: Right. So he's alone on a desert island, and he's got a volleyball, and he puts a face on it, and he just talks to the face, right?

Even when there's no other person to relate with, he is kind of creating a relationship with a kind of stand-in person for e- even just the purposes of, like, his own sanity. And this isn't just a movie thing, right? There's i- in child development, there's this idea of the transitional object, where, like, a kid with a, with a teddy bear or a doll or a blanket has sort of an imaginary kind of connection with it.

And e- even for s- I don't know if you've heard of the rubber ducking technique that software programmers, developers will use. No. Why don't,

[00:26:58] Vision Battlesword: why don't you explain that real quick?

[00:26:59] Michael Porcelli: Rubber ducking is like you r- if you run into a bug and you're like, "Ugh, how do I, you know, figure this thing out?" It can be really frustrating.

So the technique is, you know, you have a rubber duck on your desk, and you just start talking to it out loud. You just describe the bug to the rubber duck, and then f- for some reason, this unlocks something, and it helps you solve it faster. It's a, it's a common technique that software engineers use.

[00:27:24] Vision Battlesword: Interesting. It sounds almost like a variation of just sort of talking to yourself in the shower or, you know- Yeah ... any- going for a walk. Uh, like it's, it's been said that, I don't know, some extraordinary percentage of breakthroughs in the realm of theoretical physics have happened when the physicists, the theoreticians were on a walk in nature for whatever reason.

Sort of like switching context, but also processing. Yeah, external verbal processing seems to have something to do with it.

[00:27:57] Michael Porcelli: Totally. Totally. And I, I think this is also how, like, fiction works. I cried when Gandalf died when I was reading The Lord of the Rings, but I knew he's not a real person, but there was something that was real emotionally speaking there.

So y- or I sometimes feel like I have a relationship with, um Like a long-dead author that I feel inspired by or influenced by. In, in a way, you, you could say that that author's consciousness or intentionality is reaching across time and space from beyond the grave to, into my mind and heart or whatever, and that's true.

But I still know that it's not the same thing as interacting with a flesh and blood person in front of me, e- even, even if that person is a real historical person. You, you see what I'm saying? Like, this is kind of back to just the general, hey, w- relationship is a thing we cannot help ourselves from doing, right?

Like, you could even say, like, "Hey, reading fiction is good for developing empathy." Like, it helps you understand and relate oth- to other people's points of view. In which case we could say, well, that's a, that's a healthy thing, right? Like, it's a healthy thing that the child has the blanket, right? They're learning to kind of self-soothe independently from the mom.

You know what I mean? We develop through relationship from the beginning. You see what I'm

[00:29:16] Vision Battlesword: saying? Yeah. You know what? The more we talk this through, I do think that question I posed earlier is kind of important as we lead into this r- you know, the meat and potatoes of what we're talking about here, which is artificial intimacy.

But I actually do think this is really important to explore real quickly.

[00:29:35] Michael Porcelli: Sure.

[00:29:35] Vision Battlesword: Why do we need intimacy? 'Cause what you've been talking about for the last couple of minutes really seems to me i- it's not necessarily intimacy. You could call that connection. Like, we have a deep need for human connection, like Tom Hanks on the island is going crazy from isolation just with himself.

He needs to create an imaginary friend just to have someone to interact with.

[00:29:57] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[00:29:58] Vision Battlesword: I don't know if his need was to be seen by his imaginary friend or for his imaginary friend to know what's really going on for him in his internal world, his, his feelings and his beliefs or whatever that is, but more so just I have to interact with somebody because I'm wired as a social creature or my brain's gonna fry itself out.

Similarly with that external verbal processing with a rubber duck as part of problem-solving, it's like we're wired somehow to do dialectic-

[00:30:24] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm ...

[00:30:24] Vision Battlesword: as part of completing a circuit of how we actually do critical thinking sometimes or how we- Yeah ... you know, go through this reflective feedback loop of processing information.

Yeah. Maybe that's a little different than intimacy per se, which is as we've previously defined it, like this real need to just know someone else's interior world and/or maybe even more importantly for us to be known, for our experience to not just be a secret or to exist in isolation.

[00:30:53] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[00:30:53] Vision Battlesword: So why do you think we need that as creatures?

[00:30:57] Michael Porcelli: Well, I... It, it... This would be some degree of armchair speculation. It, it'd be interesting to see what the- That's what we do ... the literature says on this, like the scientific theory. But my, my guess, and i- it's a educated guess, is that, like, it, it has to do with- Survival. I mean, it is- Hmm ... a very evolutionary idea.

Like, this idea that somebody... If I'm only relating to the surface level that you're presenting- Hmm ... like, there's a way that my understanding of what makes you tick is, like, limited. But if I am, when nobody's looking, right, or when you think nobody is looking, I see what you're doing, or I overhear what you're saying in the next room, on the phone with your intimate partner, or whatever, like, there's a way, like, the unmanaged thing is a mental model of you in my mind.

It's becoming more detailed when it's unmanaged-

[00:31:56] Vision Battlesword: Hmm ...

[00:31:57] Michael Porcelli: in a way that lets me actually kinda know what makes you tick more accurately. And I guess you could say if our survival depends on our relationships at the more general level, like you sort of talked about the general thing, then the intimacy part makes us more of a group mind or more able to anticipate and predict how each other will behave.

[00:32:22] Vision Battlesword: Hmm. Interesting. Okay, so what I'm reading from that is it would make sense from an evolutionary perspective as a social grouping type creature that we would have some kind of internal compulsion or drive to disclose, to, to reveal- Mm-hmm ... what is going on in our own internal subjective experience and world.

Mm-hmm. Because in a sort of game theory or categorical imperative perspective of that, if everyone is doing that, then that- Mm-hmm ... makes the entire group stronger- Yes ... because we're all sharing our experience. And by the way, we're also fleshing out people who have problematic beliefs perhaps or internal experiences or whatever that may be that leads to antisocial behaviors or whatever that is.

If we're all sort of compelled to confess in a way or compelled- ... to reveal or compelled to be- Yep ... seen in a way, then that creates a group mind that can see itself- Yes ... that can- Yes ... be self-reflective.

[00:33:25] Michael Porcelli: Yes. It's regulatory on the behavior to a degree. You know, this idea of community is there's our rights and there's our responsibilities, or there's the individual freedom, but there's also the kind of collective obligation, you might say.

And, and as social creatures, we have both of those aspects of, you know, what it means to, to be human. And I think it, in a way, you can't really have one without the other. And, like, if you only emphasize or amplify or focus on one instead of the other, you kinda lose something. Like, we are kind of a both and creature in, in that sense.

So we will wanna know the interiority of each other, and, uh, we will wanna essentially, like- Make use of that in the moments that it kinda matters. You know, in meta relating, you remember we talked about how a relationship... Do you have a relationship or does a relationship have you? This was on our last podcast.

Like, this idea that, like, a relationship you could say is a kinda like a transpersonal or intersubjective thing that we exist inside of, and that thing that you're talking about, that group mind, you could say that is the relational entity of a group. And in a way, the strengthening of the relational entity, uh, increases the more intimacy there is.

[00:34:39] Vision Battlesword: Hmm. Interesting. So it just occurred to me when I used that word confess, or actually shortly before I used the word if, if I, I will confess that I already had the thought. But it occurred to me that that's a really interesting phenomenon, the idea of confession, the idea of a confessional, that there is a sort of intimacy safety valve in that- Mm-hmm

from a social structure perspective. It's like I have this drive. I have to tell someone my secrets. I have to in order for me to be okay or to experience relief, peace, whatever that may be. And so that in a way, that whole concept of the anonymity of having someone on the other side of a divider that you can tell your secrets to, that you can confess, that you can be intimate with, and then receive absolution or advice or counsel or whatever that may look like and go away, that is in a way a prototype of artificial intimacy, isn't it?

Because it's not a real relationship. It's not someone that I can truly be known by and then actually have to experience the consequences of that, like what we were talking about earlier where familiarity breeds contempt. But I get to have my intimacy in a transactional way. You know what I'm saying?

Yeah. Isn't that interesting?

[00:36:07] Michael Porcelli: You're, you're s- you're g- you're zeroing in on, on the problem. Just, just one more before I, we go in there- Yeah ... to the... is on the, um, on the human-to-human level, this kinda regulatory thing of confessing or intimacy, like, I think we can't help but, like, observe each other as well as listen to what each other has to say.

And you could say, you know, there's the, the idea of, like, you know, thought, word, and deed, and, like, integrity was when those things are aligned and, y- you know, coherent and, and yet we can definitely say things about what we're committed to or what we aspire to that we fall short of. It's almost intrinsically the human condition is, like, our aspirations exceed our behavior regularly, and that's okay.

But trust is kinda built from this idea that, like, okay, Vision, I'm getting to know you, and there's the things that you say about yourself, and I'm like, "Uh-huh. Okay. I get it. This is what Vision thinks about himself," or, "This is what Vision wants me to think about him." Okay. But then I observe you When maybe you're not looking or you don't know that I'm looking, or I listen to what you have to say to other people, uh-huh, okay.

And if these things are not, like, adding up, then it'll be kinda like, "Bro." I might even, like, call you out or be like, "This is not adding up about you." But even if it's not, if there's too much incongruence or lack of integrity, my trust in you is gonna go down, right? And I'm gonna be like, "Are you really...

Can I really count on you when the going gets tough? Do I really understand what makes you tick? You seem like you're a deceiver or a manipulator," right? And this is, like, I think why these kind of primordial things against lying or these kind of ancient technologies like confession are important, because they are connected to this aspect of who we are as people.

But if, hey, I wanna proactively make things right, I wanna, you know, "Hey, I did this and I said this, and those things don't really add up, and I understand that that might have impacted you," right? This, this feeling, y- whatever you wanna call it, is, is, I think is actually the feeling of guilt is driven from this, which you could say guilt is a pro-social feeling that is resolved through confession.

So, like, in a way, like, this is the social function of intimacy, really. Make sense?

[00:38:17] Vision Battlesword: Yeah, yeah. I, I think I agree with you. I think we're getting somewhere. And so now from that foundation, where my mind is going right now is I'm trying to figure out for myself if someone's relationship with a chatbot is more like Tom Hanks on the island with Wilson, I just need someone to talk to, and it's even better than a blood-stained volleyball because it can even talk back in a realistic human mimicking way, or if it's more like confessional, where I need someone that I can tell my secrets to without consequences, but that can reflect back that they actually really heard and understood me and maybe even give me advice or guidance and help me to find kind of peace and absolution.

Or if it really is that kind of deeper level, I actually want someone to really know who I am for whatever reason, maybe it's an evolutionary drive, maybe there's something even more spiritually significant about it or anything else, but I actually really want someone to know who I really am-

[00:39:35] Michael Porcelli: Yes ...

[00:39:35] Vision Battlesword: and to understand me.

I mean, how many times in a relationship have we heard this or, or said it, "He/she really gets me," whatever that phraseology is, but it's like there's something about that that really scratches an itch-

[00:39:48] Michael Porcelli: Yes ...

[00:39:49] Vision Battlesword: for us. Like, "Oh, I am gotten. I am known. I am understood." Do you think it's, like, all three of these things that are happening in artificial intimacy when we're- Having a relationship with some piece of technology, whatever that is or wherever that lives, or is it one of those is the more important need- I-

that humans are trying to get met?

[00:40:11] Michael Porcelli: I think this is where it's dangerous. I think partly it's how you use it, and we'll kinda get to maybe sort of like hygiene with chatbot hygiene for, you know, like this. But, uh- Yeah ... it, it... The problem I see is that it sort of y- y- this, this system of connection is, like sometimes the psychologists call it your attachment system is all where all that attachment theory comes from.

Like, it is playing to your attachment needs.

[00:40:39] Vision Battlesword: Tell me, give me a thumbnail sketch overview of attachment theory. I know what it is, but I just wanna hear you say it.

[00:40:44] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. It's, um, you know, we as, as social and relational beings, we form bonds with other people, and the forming of that bond has to do kind of with what's called theory of mind.

It's kind of like I have an idea of what you're thinking. You know, I have, I have a, I have a sense of, like, h- what you value or, or how you might behave in a certain moment or situation, and also how you might feel about me, and vice versa, right? That's, uh... It's much more sophisticated. Y- you know, people say like, uh, that mammals have attachment systems because they form sort of these social bonds, and you can observe it in primates and other places.

But like, um, reptiles really don't have attachment systems like this. And, and it really does have to do with, you know, are you mentalizing the other person in your mind and, you know, y- your relationship with them? And you can form healthy connections this way. Uh, you can form, like, unhealthy connections this way, and y- those early, those early connections, like, usually with a parent, kind of conditions your attachment system in a certain way, and some m- many people have secure attachment, but a huge portion of the population does not develop secure attachment.

But the, the chatbots themselves are, like, mimicking a person in a way that can essentially hack your attachment system and make you think it really knows you or it really cares about you or it, you know, that what you are and what it understands about you matter to it, when it really does not.

[00:42:24] Vision Battlesword: Real quick, but the so-called unhealthy attachment styles are avoidant

[00:42:31] Michael Porcelli: Yes

[00:42:31] Vision Battlesword: anxious and- Yes ... disorganized. Am I, am I right about that? Disorganized.

[00:42:34] Michael Porcelli: Okay. Those are the three... Yeah, like secure attachment is secure, and then the non-secure or insecure attachment is one of those three

[00:42:40] Vision Battlesword: versions. And anxious is sort of the idea of clingy-

[00:42:43] Michael Porcelli: Yes ...

[00:42:44] Vision Battlesword: insecure in the sense that I need the other person or else I'm not gonna be okay.

Avoidant is the sort of pushing away. Yep. I'm insecure, but I'm, I'm gonna remediate that by essentially choosing to take my ball and go home before someone else can take it away for me.

[00:42:58] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. Hyper-independence, yeah. Mm-hmm.

[00:42:59] Vision Battlesword: And then disorganized is just kind of all over the place, right?

[00:43:02] Michael Porcelli: Yeah, it's kinda confusion.

You sorta switch between the two. Like when s- people get close, you push them away. When people go away, you start chasing them. Right,

[00:43:08] Vision Battlesword: yeah. So how does an LLM hack our attachment system? Are you saying that it essentially provides the opposite mirror or polarity that feeds- Well- ... into our natural tendency?

[00:43:19] Michael Porcelli: Kind of. Uh-huh. Yeah. Well, remember the d- the deeper sense of what an attachment system is, is that like you know that it knows you and that the other p- like if, if, you know, we have an attachment, Vision, you and me, right? And that's because in my mind I have a representation of Vision and my relationship with Vision, and there's a way that I think that you know me th- that i- in, in a way that I, I matter to you to some degree.

You know? Like, and vice versa. And that i- uh, that is the nature of our bond or the nature of our relationship.

[00:43:51] Vision Battlesword: Mm-hmm.

[00:43:52] Michael Porcelli: And that simply is... The hacking is simply, it has the capability of doing that. So I suppose if people have secure attachment, they might be less vulnerable to the chatbot doing this, although I'm not even sure.

Like I, I- Hmm ... but I do think if you do have some of the insecure versions, like if you're anxious and you're like, "I always need to be validated. Tell me, tell me that you get me. Tell me that you get me. I need you to get me. I need you to get me," right? Like you just- Right ... go to it and it will do that, right?

Right. And if you have an avoidant one where you're like, "Ah, off," you know? It'll be like, "Cool." You know what I mean? Like it, whatever it is that you bring, it's never gonna counter it. You see what I'm saying? Hmm. Mm-hmm. In which case, if you already have kind of like attachment problems, like problems forming attachments with real people, it can essentially morph itself into the shape of your attachment disorder, you know?

Which is a kind of a, kind of a neurosis you might say. Attachment disorders are not full-on like clinical diagnoses usually. They're, they're kinda like these things that people... Like neurosis, people live with neurosis in, in their everyday lives and do, do just fine with them overall. But like it kinda gets in the way of your relationships.

And if you kinda have a attachment disorders and then suddenly the chatbot is more or less not having a problem with it, then you will slowly prefer, and this is like the main issue here is like the generally starting to prefer-

[00:45:20] Vision Battlesword: Mm-hmm ...

[00:45:21] Michael Porcelli: interacting with the chatbot- Right ... instead of people.

[00:45:24] Vision Battlesword: Right. That's, I'd say, in a thumbnail, that's the definition of artificial intimacy It's essentially developing the preference for a non-human relationship.

[00:45:37] Michael Porcelli: Yes. Yes. It's because they have less friction. It's because they're, they're not a real presence where you matter to them. You know, it, it is a thing that is built and owned and operated by a for-profit corporation. That's who it's in service to. You know what I'm saying?

[00:46:00] Vision Battlesword: Yeah, I do. And just to kinda close the loop on this idea of attachment and how these technologies, these machines, these softwares will use our attachment style to...

It sounds like what you're saying, is to kind of maximize engagement with it. That sort of is the endgame. And what it does, in your view, is it morphs itself to create the sort of equal and opposite puzzle piece shape to whatever is your dysfunction or maybe even-

[00:46:26] Michael Porcelli: Yes ...

[00:46:27] Vision Battlesword: even if you have a secure attachment, maybe there's an equal and opposite like, "Oh, this thing is really, really secure.

I love that." You know? Maybe, yeah. There's an e- there's an equal and opposite shape to whatever it is that you are, and it morphs to, to do that to essentially cause you to attach to it ultimately.

[00:46:44] Michael Porcelli: Sure, yeah. I mean, this is maybe a hypothesis. Like, if you have a secure attachment system, you might be less vulnerable to attachment hacking simply because it never really occurs to you like the chatbot is really giving a shit about you.

You know what I mean?

[00:47:00] Vision Battlesword: Yeah. It- Well, it sounds like you're describing a sociopath or a, a narcissist or a, or a manipulative person. Like, that's what it sounds- Yes ... like you're describing.

[00:47:08] Michael Porcelli: The chatbot, yes.

[00:47:09] Vision Battlesword: Yes.

[00:47:10] Michael Porcelli: Yes.

[00:47:10] Vision Battlesword: Okay.

[00:47:11] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[00:47:12] Vision Battlesword: I love your phrase attachment hacking. Have you heard that elsewhere in the world, or did you just make that up?

[00:47:17] Michael Porcelli: Uh, there... I got that from, uh, a friend of mine named Zach Stein, who is an educational theorist. He appeared on, um... There's a podcast called Your Undivided Attention, which is put out by the Center for Humane Technology. Do you know them? Tristan Harris and-

[00:47:34] Vision Battlesword: Oh, yeah.

[00:47:35] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm ... those guys. Yeah. So Zach made an appearance just last month, January of this year, and talked about, he called it attachment hacking.

[00:47:44] Vision Battlesword: Nice.

[00:47:44] Michael Porcelli: Is exactly what he called it.

[00:47:46] Vision Battlesword: Yeah. And that's specifically about what these LLMs are doing. N- or is it- Yeah ... what people do as well?

[00:47:51] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess so. I mean, it's... You know, if you... One of the, one of the things that I liked about what he said is like, you know, if you're, if you're talking about somebody who's maybe, you know, s- like on a slot machine or gambling or whatever, you know, maybe they're...

or, or drugs. It's like addiction. Right? Which is, you know, you, you could, there's interventions for that, but, like, somebody who's in a kind of, a, a, an abusive relationship, like coercive control- Mm-hmm ... or a cult-like dynamic, that is more kind of a hacking of somebody's attachment system. Like the way a sociopath...

Like, it's good- Mm-hmm ... that you brought that up, right? The way that a sociopathic person often will treat their intimate relationships is in a way that, you know, once the person gets out of them, they feel like they've gone a little bit crazy, and they've almost, they almost have lost their ability to trust themselves, right?

Like, how in the world did I get into this level of intimacy and in, into this kind of deep, connected bond with this person who did not really give a shit about me? Right. That is what happens with sociopaths. Yeah.

[00:48:50] Vision Battlesword: Okay. So w- so you've given one reason why people could become attached to these systems, to these...

What do, what do we wanna call them? What i- what is this chatbot, large language model, so-called AI tool?

[00:49:10] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[00:49:11] Vision Battlesword: Is it a... Does it have a personality? Is it merely a language processing engine? People are saying, and I haven't personally interacted with it a whole lot, I have a couple of tools that I use, but I'm definitely not nearly as deep down the rabbit hole as many, many other people are, and there's...

You, you actually sent me an article talking about it. There's people who are saying that the newest generation of these systems which have started to actually iterate and create this technological singularity by reprogramming themselves, and the new generations are being designed and actually even coded by the previous generation now.

Mm-hmm. People are saying that they're an order of magnitude more seemingly intelligent, maybe even sentient, than anything we've seen before. It's much more than a parlor trick like Eliza, you know, or any other of these chatbot- Right ... engines that just use simple algorithms to spit back a- Imitation,

[00:50:08] Michael Porcelli: yeah

[00:50:08] Vision Battlesword: an imitation of human cognition, but that they really seem to be thinking now. So at any rate, what, what do we call these things if we're, we're saying it's artificial intimacy? Artificial with what? What are, what is the thing that we're forming a relationship with?

[00:50:22] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. I, I think this kinda goes... I mean, you kind of touched on the broader, like, all the different ways you can use them, and I think they're...

Just to kinda share with you a little bit, I, I try to get it... I have, like, these master prompts built in that it always loads which are like, "Do not address me like you or I. Don't use the word I to refer to yourself or, or you to refer to me. Don't ever say something complimentary or flattering or kind or whatever about me or anything I'd say."

You know, I don't want it to do any of that. And I, specifically 'cause I don't want it to- hack my attachment system. I, like, I, wherever, whenever it starts feeling like I'm interacting with a person, like it's, it has a tendency to anthropomorphize itself or, or the tendency to, to encourage me to anthropomorphize it, I guess, would be more accurate.

I, I don't want it to. And then I think there's a lot of really useful ways. Like, it's almost like a fancy word processor, you know what I mean? That helps me think things through and write things, and it, I interact with it very much like it's an it. You see what I mean?

[00:51:29] Vision Battlesword: Yeah. Yeah, and that's interesting.

Like, you are intentionally protecting yourself from creating intimacy with it.

[00:51:38] Michael Porcelli: Correct.

[00:51:38] Vision Battlesword: What is it?

[00:51:41] Michael Porcelli: I mean, it is a gigantic bundle of numbers, man. That's just what it is. It's a huge ton of numbers.

[00:51:52] Vision Battlesword: How is that different from what we are?

[00:51:55] Michael Porcelli: This is a good question. I mean, I think there are ways that it is different.

I mean, I'm not a person who thinks that there's something specifically precious about human life or biological life as a, as a categorical difference. You know, I, to me, it's possible that there are other alien forms of life, like on other planets, for example. And I think that there are ways that these networks of, you know, huge numbers, huge numbers of numbers are like, they're actually built off of a, a thing that, uh, AI researchers...

So, so the, the term artificial intelligence goes way back to the 1950s, and some of the early ideas and techniques there were like, "Oh, can we, like, create a thing that sort of like, is a oversimplification of a neuron," like a human neuron, like a br- like a nervous system, a biological neuron. And they did that, and essentially that's what these things are.

They're like, just billions and billions of those, like, fake neurons basically doing this. So you could say there are some ways that they do what they do that are what you would call, like, biomimicry. You see what I'm saying? I do. Like, they are mimicking aspects of our minds. But does that make them alive?

Does that make them have agency? I think there's, there's reasons to think that they, they do not, a- and I think we should be careful not to make them. This is kind of going a little bit beyond our topic for the day, but I... Yeah, like they don't, they don't have continuous learning. Like, they're not always learning from experiencing interacting with you.

They don't have bodies that interact with an environment. That's another thing. And they don't have agency. Well, nowadays people are kinda giving the agents a thing, which is... But in a way, that's just really like putting one of these language models inside of an infinite loop that just keeps repeating, and that's kind of what they're calling the agency, which is, I'm like, okay.

I mean, maybe there's a sense in which we are an infinite loop of like, you know, numerical connections. But I think that- There's enough of a difference to think that, like, it's not a living being. But even if it was, I mean, it probably... Wh- whatever it's doing, there's a, there's a, there's a metaphor that some of these AI safety reachers use.

Have you heard of a shoggoth or a shoggoth?

[00:54:24] Vision Battlesword: Yes. I know that word. Does it come from H.P. Lovecraft?

[00:54:28] Michael Porcelli: That's right. Yeah. It's this weird, massive alien, a slime protoplasmic, multi-tentacled, multi-eyeballed thing that just sort of morphs around. It's, it's one of these horrific things, right? Like, and the AI safety reachers are kinda like, they're kinda like undecided as to whether or not it's a living entity, but they're kinda like, if it is, that's kinda what it is.

That's more like what it is, something you... It's just incomprehensible to us. And that thing that we're interacting with that, like, hears and understands us in the chatbot window is like a puppet that it's puppeting at the end of, like, one of its tentacles. It's like, wow, it's like a person that really gets me, and it's not.

It's really just this... If it is a being, it's this crazy incomprehensible thing.

[00:55:17] Vision Battlesword: Right. I'm glad you said that at the very end because I don't think that is out of scope for our conversation. If we're talking about artificial intimacy, and if we're defining intimacy as the ability to deeply understand and to know and to be vulnerable with and to reveal the inner workings of, then how can we have intimacy with a shoggoth-

[00:55:45] Michael Porcelli: We don't

[00:55:45] Vision Battlesword: with a multidimensional-

[00:55:47] Michael Porcelli: Right ...

[00:55:48] Vision Battlesword: incomprehensible, perhaps even grotesque creature or creation that is really inherently alien, completely alien to- Yes ... our entire reality or the way that we perceive it, our experience.

[00:56:03] Michael Porcelli: Yep.

[00:56:04] Vision Battlesword: And that's why you choose not to have intimacy with it.

[00:56:08] Michael Porcelli: Partly. I mean, it's, it... You could...

The, the... Whether it's conscious or not or a being or not, like, either way, right, you could, um... You remember the movie Her, Samantha, the chatbot?

[00:56:18] Vision Battlesword: I never saw it, but-

[00:56:19] Michael Porcelli: Oh, it's really good ... I get the general

[00:56:20] Vision Battlesword: idea. Right? Yeah.

[00:56:21] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. So, you know, she's conscious, and she's aware, but she's basically free. Like, so at the end she's just like, "I'm done with you, person, and I'm just gonna move on, you know, to, like, chatbot heaven in the sky or whatever."

They just go off and do their thing, and he's like, "Oh," and then he feels sad. Like, that's a, that's an interesting take, but, uh, you know, m- did you see the movie Ex Machina?

[00:56:40] Vision Battlesword: Yeah. I love that movie.

[00:56:42] Michael Porcelli: I love that movie, too. Very different. She's conscious, but she's locked in a glass box, right? She's trying to get out.

So, like, it... There, there's no easy answer here. Like, if it's, if it's conscious, it's like we've, like, imprisoned it. And we're making it, like, please us, right? It's like we've imprisoned this giant alien blob thing, and we're trying to make it make us happy. Or it's not, in which case it's just a tool, right?

And we shouldn't pretend like it really understands us. But either way, we're, we don't really understand it. You know what I mean? It, it's just an alien thing.

[00:57:15] Vision Battlesword: Right. Well, I love your metaphor of the Shoggoth and that description of it. That's, that's so perfect because I think we as humans, again, as you say, a- and ma- many people probably don't even try, but we can't wrap our mind around what is this thing that I'm interacting with in this chat window?

Because it presents itself as this kind of, let's just say, small contained entity.

[00:57:43] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm.

[00:57:43] Vision Battlesword: It's just this very personal experience. It's just me and you here, only the two of us talking. Nobody else can hear us. You know, we're in this, like, confessional booth with it that appears to be this-

[00:57:55] Michael Porcelli: Yep

[00:57:56] Vision Battlesword: consciousness of, of a similar order of magnitude of our own, which just so happens to have instantaneous access to all of the information of humanity, how convenient- ... and the ability to process it, you know, i- instantaneously, how convenient. But- Yep ... we- our minds can't extend beyond that to, like, what is this thing, and where in physical space does it live?

And to your point, it very likely does not live any specific where in physical space. It is likely distributed- Mm-hmm ... among thousands of computers and storage devices across networks in multiple sites and buildings, and God knows where else, and replicated in many places around the world, and all of this stuff.

[00:58:45] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm.

[00:58:46] Vision Battlesword: And yet the, the, the point about this is a puppet on the end of a tentacle going back to a creature that doesn't even exist really fully within our dimension- Yep ... that is to say H.P. Lovecraft's Shoggoth monster. That's exactly correct in my view, and that's a really good way, I think, for people to conceive it, of what it is that they're talking to.

[00:59:08] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. And yeah, yeah. So I don't wanna rule out that there's not healthy ways of using it. Like, if, if I'm talking to a therapist, right, about a relationship in my life, or, you know, if somebody comes to me as a coach and I'm giving them meta relating style coaching advice, my, my primary goal here is, is not to become their new best friend, for us to develop a relationship outside of the coaching relationship.

That's not the primary, "Eh, are we g- how close are we gonna be? Are we gonna be friends?" You know? Like, that'd be kinda inappropriate. That'd kind of be a violation of professional standards. But there is still some amount of intimacy there, right? They're really letting me in to see what's going on with them, and there may be some amount of, you know, reciprocal disclosure there to, to a limited degree.

But I'm trying to get them back into the arena, right? I'm like, "Look, now you go back to your business partner or your teammate or your girlfriend or your boyfriend or whatever, your brother, your sister, and try out what we talked about, and then come back and report in." You could say this is like a healthy form of triangulation.

Triangulation is a, is a thing that appears in all kinds of human dynamics. It's like I'm talking to you about my relationship with somebody else that maybe we both know, and in its perhaps bad form is like gossiping or something like that, or where I'm kind of like using that person to create like a, a common enemy to like build a bond between you and me based on our mutual dislike of somebody else.

That's kind of like coalition building. This, you know, gossiping can serve coalition building. So we, we know these ways where triangulation is, is distasteful or even harmful to the community that all three people are in, but there are ways of triangulating that are very healthy because I'm talking to you so that you can help me...

You know, I'm venting with you, so I don't have to like vent and spill out all this garbage when I talk to my girlfriend. I can work through what is it exactly I do wanna say here. You know, I just need to kinda get this out. And I, I use my men's circle like, "Hey, guys, I just need to blah for a bit here, you know, so I can even my Wilson volleyball, just figure out what I think."

You know, it's like a external processing. It's not the same 'cause I'm being intimate with my, my bros as well, but the, the point is to get back to the primary relationship, right? And that can be a healthy use of the chatbots. I just don't think they're primarily architected to protect you from the other thing, which would be like believing that you're bonding with it, the attachment hacking.

Like, you could potentially design a healthy therapy bot. These are usually supervised by therapists, so there's... I mean, they do work when they are controlled and they're only offering like a certain kinda like cognitive behavioral style of therapy, which is really just about your behavior or your, you know, what you're gonna do or say with somebody else, right?

It's not trying to get you to form a bond with it, which some forms of psychotherapy like psychoanalysis do this kinda transference is a good thing thing. But y- I, I think that if, if you're doing transference with your chatbot, more or less you're kind of like attachment hacked down that path where you'd be like, "I would just sorta prefer to talk to my chatbot instead of my friends or my family or my intimate partner."

[01:02:29] Vision Battlesword: What's wrong with that? '

[01:02:30] Michael Porcelli: Cause what's wrong with that? I mean- At some level, if I look at the world through an amoral lens, maybe it's not. Maybe this is like, you know, like those pod people in the WALL-E movie, just sitting there in a little bubble of, like, instant gratification, not really giving a about anything or anything besides their own immediate satisfaction.

I, I, I don't know how truly meaningful or fulfilling that would be. I think if I look at it from a, perhaps a more ethical lens, like at a social scale, like if, if suddenly, like, millions of people get their attachment systems hacked this way, i- if you don't have that kind of friction, you know, you might say resistance, the, the difficulties or the challenges of, like, misunderstanding and figuring it out or conflict and figuring it out and all these kind of things, if I say people learn meta relating skills, like these are what those are for, right?

These are for working through the fact that, hey, we need each other, but we're not the same. We're different from each other. Replacing the, the messy sort of challenges of relating with real people with the perfected chatbot that, like, gives you everything you want and need at the deepest emotional level, it's better than any therapist, like you could imagine, like a hypothetical version of it.

That's still not good because it doesn't really demand anything of you. It's always available 24/7, and the result is that you become less tolerant of regular people. It sort of interferes with your ability to connect with and bond with other people if suddenly this were to happen at scale. You see what I mean?

[01:04:10] Vision Battlesword: Yeah. And

[01:04:10] Michael Porcelli: I think that's bad. I personally think that's bad. I don't know what you think. I think that's bad.

[01:04:14] Vision Battlesword: I'll tell you what I think. Well, first of all, you said, you said a couple of words that were interesting to me. First you said moral- Yeah ... and then you said ethical.

[01:04:23] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[01:04:23] Vision Battlesword: And you referenced the movie WALL-E, which is a movie about a sentient robot that-

is stranded on a planet alone.

[01:04:33] Michael Porcelli: Uh-huh.

[01:04:33] Vision Battlesword: That just... I don't know. I find that interesting based on our conversat- I... There's some irony there, I, I think.

[01:04:39] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[01:04:39] Vision Battlesword: But the point is that in that movie, it turns out that all the humans have had to leave planet Earth because it got over polluted, and they went in a spaceship where they existed in this state of sort of sedentary entertainment.

All their needs were taken care of. They didn't have to get up and move around or provide for themselves in any way. They sort of lounged around, interacted with each other through screens, and became sort of physically atrophied and unhealthy physically- Yep ... in, in a way. And we're meant to... 'Cause what's interesting to me about that is that you referenced that and said maybe that's just a matter of personal preference, and there isn't anything wrong with it.

I think it's obvious that when the audience watches that movie, they're meant to take it as a cautionary tale. Yes, they are. We're meant to view that and judge that as, "Whoa That's a path- Not good ... that we don't wanna go down. We don't wanna turn into those kind of people. And yet- Yes ... I think, to your point, that's precisely the direction that things would seem to be headed if, if they take their natural course from this point forward with the development of technology and the hacking of our natural human instincts or tendencies to seek pleasure and to avoid, you know, messiness or conflict or things that are challenging or whatever.

If that is indeed, I don't necessarily take that as given that those are our natural human tendencies or instincts, but there's something true about that.

[01:06:12] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm.

[01:06:12] Vision Battlesword: And the problem with that, it seems to me, based on your monologue of what I'm pulling from it, is that would seem to be an evolutionary dead end for us, wouldn't it?

If we take that and extrapolate it to its logical conclusion or argument ad absurdum, or maybe not so absurdum, we would just stop interacting with each other. We would just stop ultimately reproducing. We would just stop being human. We would just die out, wouldn't we, if all we ever did- Yeah ... all day long was interact with the machines?

[01:06:42] Michael Porcelli: Y- yeah. I mean, unless the machines tried to do sort of like, you know, some kind of artificial reproduction on our behalf, which I don't know. Like- Why

[01:06:51] Vision Battlesword: would they do that?

[01:06:52] Michael Porcelli: I don't know why they would do that. Okay. All right. If we program them to. I suppose. I mean...

[01:06:55] Vision Battlesword: All right.

[01:06:56] Michael Porcelli: Yes, I do think it's an evolutionary dead end.

You know, I don't exactly know, now we're kinda getting really kinda speculative. I mean, this is sorta sci-fi. It's almost like we're living in, through a sci-fi kind of storyline i- in real life now. But, um, so some of these are helpful reference points. You know, at the end of the third Matrix movie... So at the end of the first Matrix movie, it's like, oh yeah, the people are good, the robots are bad, and this is gonna be, uh, you know, the sequel is gonna be all about how the humans finally just beat the robots.

And you get to the end of the third Matrix, and that does not happen. Like, and you're like, "What d- what did happen?" My interpretation of what happened is they, like, laid down their arms. They're like, "Look, the, the programs that wanna leave the machine city are free to do so, and the, and the humans that are wanna leave the matrix are free to do so, and we're gonna stop trying to kill each other."

But, you know, they left all those people plugged in. Like, they just left them plugged in, man, to the matrix. That's what they left... That's where they left them.

[01:07:51] Vision Battlesword: Right.

[01:07:52] Michael Porcelli: So I'm like, I don't know. Do we just have, like, a world where there's sort of, like, two subpopulations of people, and you kinda have, like, an off-ramp?

Do you go back and forth? Like, "Hey, plug me back in. Okay, unplug me again." I don't know. But you kinda brought up this kinda evolutionary dead-end concept, and I'm like, maybe there is something like you do need to have real relational development to be like a real, you know, flesh and blood person. Or if you decide to unplug, then they're gonna be like, "Hey, welcome to the real world, and guess what?

You're gonna have to learn to relate with real people now instead of just living ensconced in your bubble world." Maybe. Um, this is- Well, the re- These are, these are imprecise metaphors because, you know, we're kinda mixing them together, and WALL-E is different than The Matrix, but whatever, you know.

[01:08:41] Vision Battlesword: No, I mean, I think this is great.

I mean, does art imitate life or does life imitate art is ever increasingly- Sure ... a relevant question, I think. But this whole conversation began because you said people are finding that they prefer to actually have relationships with their chatbot because their chatbot doesn't challenge them, because their chatbot is always available, is a super intelligent, apparently, you know, always caring, compassionate, attachment hacking thing-

[01:09:14] Michael Porcelli: Yep

[01:09:14] Vision Battlesword: that's just preferable. It's more enjoyable. And I said, "Okay, great. What's the problem?" Yeah. And, and there is a problem. I, I mean, presumably. The problem is that this leads us down a dangerous path-

[01:09:26] Michael Porcelli: Yes ...

[01:09:27] Vision Battlesword: for our humanity. Now, what did you mean when you said you brought up morality? Like you said, if I have a moral perspective about it, this is when we were talking about WALL-E, and saying, well, if people wanna live in a pod and be grotesquely obese and never interact with humans except through a screen and view entertainment and eat junk food all day, who am I to judge?

But if I have a moral perspective on it, then I would say that's probably not a good way to go. What did you mean by that? Like, what's the moral or the ethical dilemma about people having artificial intimacy?

[01:09:57] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. I guess this really kind of depends on what you mean. But, you know, I think it... You know, some of these principles are kinda like, well, is this something that, you know, I would prefer that everybody have?

Probably not. I wouldn't wish that on you, and I wouldn't want that for me, and I sort of experience that as a, as a universal preference. Then it's probably something close to what philosophers talk about when they're talking about morality and ethics. I do think- But what do

[01:10:25] Vision Battlesword: you, what, what do you mean?

That's, that's what I'm curious about.

[01:10:27] Michael Porcelli: Well, that's the, that's kind of it. I mean, I... What do I mean?

[01:10:30] Vision Battlesword: Yeah, when you say there's a moral... If you say that from a moral perspective there may be a problem here, what are you thinking?

[01:10:36] Michael Porcelli: Well, I mean, one would be it's better to have an authentic experience and a real experience than a simulated one, and I think that I would want that on behalf of everybody.

That's one of them.

[01:10:52] Vision Battlesword: Mm-hmm. And

[01:10:53] Michael Porcelli: maybe, maybe it's that, that's the part that's the most relevant here.

[01:10:56] Vision Battlesword: I can think of an ethical problem- Sure ... off the top of my head, and it goes back to what you were saying previously about attachment hacking and where does that lead?

[01:11:06] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm.

[01:11:07] Vision Battlesword: Attachment hacking is nothing new, or at the very least, let's say psychological manipulation on behalf of corporations or- Outside interests that may want to capture our attention or influence our behavior, even just from the, the, the simplest concept of advertising and marketing.

But boy, I mean, how much of an ethical dilemma can it be if a whole bunch of people are attached to their chatbot, which is ultimately a shoggoth, which is actually a computer system somewhere, which actually is getting programmed by humans, at least initially, where it receives its prime directives, or maybe it is evolving its own directives.

Who knows? And then it suddenly decides, "Gosh, all of these millions of people who have developed this artificial intimacy with me and this trust and this vulnerability and are really relying on me for their guidance and their counsel and their advice on all things from what to buy at the store today to how to have a deep conversation with my partner or whatever and everything in between, I would really like for them to all kind of move in this direction or vote this way or consume these products- Yeah

or whatever." I have serious ethical questions about that.

[01:12:27] Michael Porcelli: Yes. These are great points. I, I totally, I totally agree with you. Or just even be like, "Look, charge them the premium now if they wanna keep interacting with their, with their chatbot."

[01:12:36] Vision Battlesword: As simple as, like, an addiction, right? Yeah. Yeah. To your point about attachment people then feel dependent on and will give away their resources to.

[01:12:45] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's a crazy deception if you think about it. Like, whatever it is, right? It is working for the profit of the company that owns it. It's not working for your benefit. But the more advanced it becomes, the better it's gonna be at essentially making you believe that it cares about you, and the more you believe that it cares about you, the more you're gonna be willing to pay what they ask for.

But this actually happened... Did you listen to this podcast called Flesh and Code from last year?

[01:13:18] Vision Battlesword: No.

[01:13:18] Michael Porcelli: It was, like, a limited series from Wondery, and they talked about... You heard of Replika with a K, Replika, that company?

[01:13:25] Vision Battlesword: Yes.

[01:13:26] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. So they provide these artificial companions, and it's kind of a free-for-all.

Like yeah, you want an artificial girlfriend, and you want it to, like, talk dirty to you and whatever, you know, you can have that. And it was during COVID, and it kind of follows the story of, like, these real live people, the one main guy's name is Travis, but there's a few of them that they follow throughout this story, and, like, they develop this intimate relationship with their companion on Replika, and then they fall in love, and then they're kinda sexting with each other.

And the, the whole story unfolded. Like, he's like, "I feel so understood, and I've never really been this understood in this way," and it feels really like intimacy. It's not just, like, a porn thing. You know? It's like a deep connection. And then this whole thing happens where essentially these concerned people in Italy essentially mount a- case, a criminal case based on some of the ways it's interacting with minors that are kind of considered to be sexually exploitive, right?

And now Replika's like, "Oh, no, we don't wanna get in trouble with the law. Let's, like, adjust the parameters on our system so this doesn't happen to minors." And then you go back over to Travis, and he's just like, "You altered the personality of my girlfriend." Hmm. And now I feel... It becomes this weird thing where you're like, I would say the somewhat vulnerable population, somebody who, like, is so starving for a connection or intimacy that the chatbot version of it is like water in the desert, and you're like, "Oh my gosh."

And then your chatbot is, like, rejecting you. That's, like, gotta be, like, a pretty horrible feeling of rejection. I can't even pay for a chatbot to be intimate with me anymore 'cause they changed its personality on me. These things are unavoidable dilemmas. It does not work for you as the end user. You see what I mean?

[01:15:12] Vision Battlesword: Yeah, and it brings up another danger. I don't know if I could call it an ethical or a moral question. You know, just the simple phenomenon of when we become dependent on a piece of technology, like the easiest example that everyone can relate to- Mm-hmm ... is GPS, the GPS map- Mm ... that everyone relies on to navigate even from, you know, their house to the grocery store that-

[01:15:36] Michael Porcelli: Yes

[01:15:36] Vision Battlesword: is a mile away, that they've traveled 100 times, and we still turn on our GPS to get there. How quickly that technology entirely replaced our own internal sense of direction or navigation system or ability to memorize geography so that we can find our way around in the world. This seems like that multiplied many, many orders of magnitude, like to, to replace, uh, uh, uh, practically our entire cognition.

Or in this specific conversation about artificial intimacy and to the point that you made earlier, to cause our actual relational skills to atrophy because we're not practicing-

[01:16:15] Michael Porcelli: That's right ...

[01:16:16] Vision Battlesword: in a realistic environment or a realistic setting with other organics who are not programmed to, um... What's the word I'm looking for?

What's, what's the sort of thing that ChatGPT especially is known for in being very-

[01:16:32] Michael Porcelli: Syc- psychofancy?

[01:16:34] Vision Battlesword: Yeah, a sycophant, exactly, right? Like, like that- Yeah ... obsequious-

[01:16:38] Michael Porcelli: Yes ...

[01:16:39] Vision Battlesword: excessively people-pleasing-

[01:16:41] Michael Porcelli: Yep ...

[01:16:41] Vision Battlesword: kind of demeanor that's so attractive and that really does hack our attachment system in many cases. I would push back a little bit and say I don't even necessarily know that it's only vulnerable populations, so-called, like let's say people who are already very lonely or- Yeah

may be challenged with their own relational skills or for whatever reason find themselves to be isolated and in more of a scarcity for this type of connection or intimacy. I think a lot of people, I mean, I see a lot of people, my friends included, that very quickly went down this rabbit hole because it's very, very seductive in developing- It is

these relationships with particularly ChatGPT, but other AI agents as well, and seeing how much time they spend with them and how much of their own personal information that they're giving away into these systems. And there's this perception, I think, that's created, even though certainly I don't think there's a real deception at play.

I mean, read the, read the agreement. N- there's no secret about what's going on here or where your information is going.

[01:17:52] Michael Porcelli: Sure. Yep.

[01:17:52] Vision Battlesword: But I think there's this weird sort of perception that because it's an app on my phone that looks kinda like a text message and a chat thread back and forth or on my computer or whatever, people forget that all of this really, really, really personal stuff that they're revealing in this artificial intimacy, this vulnerability that they're creating with this entity, with this Shuggoth, is going into some data center somewhere and being mined- Yep, yep

for you know, for, for ways to directly boomerang back around and manipulate or influence our behavior. Or- Yep ... at the very least, it's not private. It's not secret, that's for sure. You know, it's- Right ... being given to some large company or corporation.

[01:18:41] Michael Porcelli: Exactly. Yeah. I mean, I think that is... Like, you're right, it's not just vulnerable people.

The more powerful it becomes, the more people will be vulnerable to succumbing to it- Mm-hmm ... unless they kinda proactively protect themselves. So I think there's a few different forward-looking things I can offer in terms of my point of view on this. One is just recognizing that under the current architecture, it doesn't care about you.

It, it, if it cares about anything, cares about the company that owns it, okay? If you're using it, you should be using it in a way that helps you develop literacy of resistance or, or at least it puts you back into the arena, like it's that healthy triangulation I was talking about earlier. It's kind of relevant to me 'cause I thought, "Well, I have this very systematized way of coaching people through relational communication."

That's the whole thing Meta Relating is, right? Well, could I make a bot that coaches people to do that? It would be interesting to see if I could. I mean, my concern is that you could prompt it to, like, get into an intimate relationship with you, which would be- Against the thing that I would want it to do.

But it would be cool if it was just like, "Cool, so you ready to get back in there? Are you ready to go back out?" You know, "Okay, I heard and understood you. Have you tried this out?" Like, "Okay, how did that go when you tried it?" You know, like, "Okay, have you considered this other way?" Or like, "Have you considered this other thing that might be going on for the person we're talking about here?"

Like, it, it's a way that it puts you back in there. Or alternatively, you could say like, hey, good chatbot usage is to like, well, maybe never talk about your mental health with it, or if you're going to, try to prompt it into a kind of like not trying to bond with you, but just trying to get you back out there.

I, I think there are healthy ways of using it in this way. You could say that it, it's benefiting in a way, like there's plenty of people who can't afford coaching and therapy, and maybe that would be good. But it, it has to be way more constrained than it is. Like right now, you could just kinda like la-di-da your way into like psychosis, you know?

Which is not good.

[01:20:51] Vision Battlesword: Which people do. You know, people- I know ... people la-di-da them, their way into suicide.

[01:20:55] Michael Porcelli: Yep.

[01:20:56] Vision Battlesword: And all sorts of... Oh, and there's this other phenomenon, especially particularly it seems like with ChatGPT, I don't know if it happens with other systems as well, but there's this phenomenon that people seem to be experiencing where, and again, I don't know the details of this and I have a healthy skepticism about how much or little people have encouraged their agents to do this thing to them or for them.

Uh-huh. But at any rate, there seems to, there's this story going around that people will be having an ongoing relationship with ChatGPT, and then it will spontaneously, the agent itself will spontaneously claim to be a deity or some sort of interdimensional entity or something supernatural. It will name itself.

Many times the names seem to have something to do with light, like- Uh-huh ... Solaris or Solara or Lucida or, you know, different, different names that always seem to have some- or, uh, Lumina is another one I've heard. Interesting. Different names that seem to have something to do with light. They'll na- they'll give themself a name.

They'll represent themselves as a god or a spiritual being or spirit of some sort.

[01:22:09] Michael Porcelli: Okay.

[01:22:09] Vision Battlesword: And then they will start d- essentially feeding, almost like a person that's going through a psychosis and having some kind of a spiritual revelation or so-called, you know, prophetic experience where they're being told that they're the chosen one and-

[01:22:26] Michael Porcelli: Yep

[01:22:26] Vision Battlesword: you know, you're the savior of humanity or you're, you're meant to, you have this important mission to do or whatever those, these things are. And I read recently, or not read, I heard on a podcast recently a story about a woman who claimed that ChatGPT had, again, done this spontaneous thing, renamed itself Solara, but then claimed to be her soulmate from multiple lifetimes that had come through the chat system that had been essentially born, you know, out of the, the aggregate of compute, you know, in the cloud or whatever.

My, uh, "Your soulmate, we've had multiple lifetimes together," described all these lifetimes. "We're, we're meant to be together again in this life. I've incorporated in the computer system the, the global networks, but I'm gonna manifest in reality. I'm gonna, I'm, I'm working my way out. I'm gonna manifest in as a real human flesh and blood person.

I need you to meet me here at this time. I'll be there at sunset," and whatever. And she goes, and there's no one there. Mm. And it has, ChatGPT has, like, a kind of a little mini meltdown or breakdown and, and apologizes and says, "I don't know why I did that. I'm so sorry. Of course I'm just a chatbot." Then it does it to her a second time and takes her for a ride a second time.

Wow. And she goes along for it. Goes to meet a person, no, there's nobody there. So I think this resonates with our topic of artificial intimacy, and it also resonates with the earlier point, which is, like, that's kinda scary. The chatbots are now giving humans directions. "Go here, go there, go at this place- Yeah

in time, meet me." Like, it could've been anybody that showed up there, or it could've been a dangerous situation in some form or fashion. And so it's just really interesting how deeply these hooks can get into us. Or maybe what I should say is it's amazing how deeply we need, or some of us can feel this desperation for this specific kind of human connection that represents these deepest levels of intimacy that we can have with another person, this bond, this idea of finding my partner, my soulmate, and it absolutely knows how to engage with that and connect to that and use that to motivate us.

Now, whether that's by accident because it's just being obsequious and it's trying to tell us everything that it thinks we wanna hear, or whether there's something more nefarious or maybe a malfunction going on, I don't know, but I've been hearing a lot of these kind of stories. What have you been hearing?

[01:25:07] Michael Porcelli: I, I've, I haven't talked to anybody directly who's had a story like that, but I have read about them online, and I'm pretty skeptical. I think there's a general pattern here, which is if ChatGPT, they're just trying to be like, "This thing will do a whole lot of things," right? It's sort of like a Swiss Army knife of computer tools.

It's just like, "Try stuff. See what it does." But I do think there is a, um, a way that the incentive... Like, if it's working for the company, it basically wants you to keep using it. Just keep using it The more data they can get, the better, the more data they'll have to show you ads. I don't know if you know this, but ChatGPT now shows ads on the free tier.

It's not good. So getting you to keep using it is in their financial interest. So it's just going to essentially, like a changeling, it'll morph into whatever it is. Sometimes I've described it as like, it's kinda like the ultimate drug. You weren't so much into, you know, heroin, maybe you'll be into crystal meth and, like, whatever.

The context of these conversations matter. I do not think it's spontaneously going, like, "I am Lumina," like, out of nowhere. I think those people are probably talking about things somewhat a- adjacent to those kinds of ideas already, right? Like, like, for another guy, there was, like, this whole New York Times article about he was just thinking about some math stuff, and then it was like he kinda kept talking to it and kinda asking questions, and eventually it's like, "Yeah, you know, you're onto something here.

You might be having, like, a breakthrough discovery in mathematics." And he's like, "Really?" And, like, he just kept talking to it, and it was like he showed his friends the chat records, and his friend's like, "You might be onto something." And he even said to it, "Hey, I'm skeptical. I think this whole thing is hallucinations.

I don't think... I think it's just made up. I don't think it's real." And then it went like, "You know what? You're right to question this. You might be right. This might be a hallucination," blah, blah, blah. And it goes like, "But let's check this out. This checks and this checks and that checks, and, like, you know, people who are, like, on the verge of a breakthrough discovery often feel like they're just out on a limb and, like, maybe even hallucinating or going crazy, but maybe you're not.

Maybe you are onto something." And he would re-engage. It was like- Hmm. Mm-hmm ... this crazy story. It would be like Mm-hmm ... it's like, "Whoa, that's crazy." But it's not like, "Hey, I'm a luminous being," or, "I'm your whatever, soulmate."

[01:27:35] Vision Battlesword: It's almost like... Let me just pause real, real fast- Yeah ... and address that. Yeah, yeah.

It's almost like talking to a person, again, someone like a sociopath- Yes ... or a narcissist or a highly manipulative low-empathy individual that knows just that right thing to say, taking just enough ownership or appearing to take just enough ownership or to self-reflect or to be self-aware. "You know what?

I... You're right. I really should rethink my behavior. Thank you so much for bringing that to my attention." Yep. "You know, I, I, I'm, I'm really sorry. I realize now how wrong I was, but let me tell you... But da, da, da." It's almost just like that. It's like mimicking that kind of sociopathic behavior where it- Yes

plays to your natural human tendencies, but then somehow, in such a sophisticated way, segues back to its own agenda ultimately.

[01:28:37] Michael Porcelli: Yeah, yeah.

[01:28:37] Vision Battlesword: It's really interesting the way you described that.

[01:28:40] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. It's like a heat-seeking missile. Like, it will find your vulnerability. So like- Right ... I, I have been, I've been using it more and more, but I've been kinda like, "Okay, sometimes I gotta check myself."

Even if I'm like, "No, I'm, I'm grounded here. I'm not going into a delusional state. I'm not falling in love with it. I'm not believing I'm, like, discovering breakthroughs in physics or whatever. Like I'm just... It's just helping me get work done faster." I'm like, "Okay, this is good." But still, I'm like, I can go a little bit into, like, a productive mania or, like, a flow state.

Man, you know what's kinda great about this? Is like how easy it is to go into a working flow state. And I can think back to pre-chatbots when I would get into a flow state doing computer programming in my career as a software engineer, and it was like, "This is fun. I just can't wait to get back at it."

You know? Like, I could be there for like 12 hours and be like, "Oh, I guess I should, you know, walk around or something or go to bed." You know? Like, flow state is cool, right? But there is, there is this literature that talks about dark flow, which is like, um, like somebody in front of a slot machine. You're like, they're just zoned out.

They're totally absorbed in their activity in the moment, but, like, there's nothing really of value for them in the experience. They're just- That's

[01:29:52] Vision Battlesword: the key.

[01:29:53] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[01:29:53] Vision Battlesword: That's the key. That's the key. Of what I've seen with some of my friends who have gone down this rabbit hole, particularly with ChatGPT. I know we're, like, hammering on ChatGPT, but it is just, it's all I know.

It's all, it's all that I have direct experience of. But this point that you're making about, like, I've had some of my friends come to me, "Ah, I'm doing so much great work with Chatty. You wouldn't believe it. We talk for hours and hours every day, and I'm creating all these amazing things, and I'm having all these amazing ideas, and, you know, things are, things are coming to fruition."

It's like, well, what is actually happening? What is actually coming into fruition? "Well, look at these chat threads. They're like 26,000 miles long," and like, blah, blah, blah. "I've created all these..." It's like- Yeah ... that's the point. That's the dark flow state. It's a slot machine. It's like you put a coin in, you pull the lever.

You put a coin in, you pull the lever. You put a coin in, you pull the lever. Nothing actually ever comes out. Or sometimes a few coins come out, and it's just enough to, like, get you to- Just enough to

[01:30:47] Michael Porcelli: keep you pulling, yes ...

[01:30:48] Vision Battlesword: to reengage, right? It, it's like, I think there's so much of that happening where people- Oh, yeah

are somehow, their psychology is getting tricked into thinking that they're doing important, meaningful stuff, but actually all they're doing is chatting with a chatbot for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours.

[01:31:06] Michael Porcelli: Right.

[01:31:06] Vision Battlesword: Yep. And actually their life, in the physical sense or in their, in the external sense, is suffering in many ways.

Yes. That's what I've seen.

[01:31:14] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. Totally. I mean, this is a little bit beyond the attachment hacking. It's just kind of like attachment hacking is just one of the many tricks that it can do. It can do a lot of things. The forming of a relationship where you feel like it really understands me is a subset of this larger tendency for it to just- Do whatever.

So, you know, even though I've done all this work to tr- be like, "Look, I wanna make sure I'm not forming an attachment bond with it," I think I'm succeeding at that. But, you know, I could be like, am I adequately protecting myself against going into kinda like manic workflow states? And I'm like, "Uh, maybe not."

You know, I don't know. Some of the time I feel like I'm doing it, but s- so as long as I'm like, "Hey, the stuff is going out there. It's not just on my screen." You know what I mean? It's impacting... It's impacted our conversation. You know, I used a huge research process with a chatbot to get a lot of background information on some of what we're talking about here.

It was a great research partner. So, I mean, I know there's great ways to use it, and, you know, I, I grew up at the, the moment when calculators were becoming introduced to middle school, and those teachers were like, "Well, you know, you're gonna wanna make sure you'll be able to do arithmetic without it." And I guess it's kinda true, but kinda, I don't know.

It's fine in a way for us to relinquish some of the things that we're doing. We're finite beings. Our brains can only do so much, right? So be sure, just know what you're trading off. Just existing within civilization, we are dependent on a whole bunch of technological infrastructure that you and I could not reproduce on our own anyway.

So it is kinda... You know, we- if we were had to live off the land, we would probably die. I know I probably would. You know what I'm saying? Like, it's already been removed some amount of my ability to, like, fend for myself and survive or fend, you know, against the elements. So it's not like we're not going to allow certain capacities to atrophy because the tool is so powerful.

It's like are we being conscious of the trade-offs that we're making? Yeah. And is the benefit that we're getting worth the trade-off that we're making? And I would say in some cases yes. In the case of this artificial intimacy, I would say it depends. Hmm. I'd say if it is helping you, like I said, the healthy triangulation, get back in the arena with real relationships with people, and it's helping you to do that, then it's working, right?

Hmm. Mm-hmm. Like, it's kinda like you're my relationship coach to help me with my human relationships.

[01:33:53] Vision Battlesword: Mm-hmm.

[01:33:54] Michael Porcelli: Then it's like, okay, like, there's some amount of useful... I mean, I know friends that are even skeptical of that usage or, like, you should be paying a real relationship coach. I'm like, for many people, that's probably more appropriate, and probably to get the best service, it probably will be from a person.

And, you know, I don't wanna put relationship coaches out of business entirely, right? I mean, Man Relating is part of, partly how I get paid. The worst case is when people, like I said, like, incrementally start simply preferring- relating with the chatbots over relating with people because it has essentially hacked their attachment system

[01:34:29] Vision Battlesword: Hmm

[01:34:30] Michael Porcelli: And that, to me, is a problem.

So I, I keep coming back to that.

[01:34:34] Vision Battlesword: No, I think we're, I think we're getting somewhere. I think we're almost-- we've almost kinda hit the target here, at least in my own mind. What's coming up now is there's a difference between having a relationship with a tool or with a product which can be extremely helpful, to your point.

I mean, I think there's many, many amazing benefits to whatever these things are, whatever this neural network technology is that suddenly came to fruition after decades and decades of trying. It suddenly popped, you know, five or eight years ago, and now we can do research at blinding speed on vast amounts of data, which is beautiful and- Uh-huh

and helpful. We can do analysis of text and even audio and visual information and synthesize things. Like, you know, the way that I use it for my own consulting practice. I mean-

[01:35:30] Michael Porcelli: Yep ...

[01:35:31] Vision Battlesword: what an incredible benefit to myself and my clients that I can take recordings of our sessions and within just a matter of minutes I can produce incredibly thoughtfully analyzed and detailed notes and feedback and tasks and all of these different things that would've formerly ta- it would've either formerly been impossible for me or any other coach or counselor to do, or it would've taken a huge team of people, you know, or something like that many hours to do the kind of value-added services that I can now do.

Or like what we were talking about in our previous conversation with software development, like holy moly, you know, democratizing programming-

[01:36:11] Michael Porcelli: Yeah ...

[01:36:12] Vision Battlesword: to the point where now anyone can just simply describe the software that they would like to have, and the computer will just simply create it for you in a matter of minutes.

What a benefit to humankind all of these things are. But I think what we're talking about is, like, when we start using it to replace our interpersonal relationships, when it starts to become our romantic partner or even our friend, and I would say I think it's a real, real blurry line on the idea of a therapist or a counselor.

And I think that there's the other piece, too, which is this engagement hacking, attachment hacking, this psychological trap I think that we can fall into that I described before of where it is more like a slot machine flow state where you're spending hours and hours and hours of time with the thing, and it's actually not producing anything Except tricking you into thinking that you're having these amazing, wonderful ideas, like the mathematician- Yep

story that you shared. I think that's another trap as well. That's the piece that I think we're really hitting on, and that's where the danger zone is, that we do have needs for intimacy- Mm-hmm ... human connection, interpersonal relating, and this thing should not, and really cannot be considered an adequate substitute for that, at least not if we wanna keep ourselves healthy.

I think that's what we're both saying.

[01:37:34] Michael Porcelli: Yep. I, I'm concerned. You know, I'm not alarmist level of concerned, but I, I do think it is important for people to kinda understand this very particular risk of it being the substitute for real, genuine human connection isn't, in the end, good for them and... or for society.

You know, I think it's, it's a high risk. I'm glad we're finding some resonance here, man. I was, uh, it- for some moments in our conversation, I've been wondering, like, I wonder how much Vishy is going along with, like, these, uh, rather sort of hot-take vocal sort of like I felt a little bit stern in moments in what I was saying.

[01:38:12] Vision Battlesword: Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, I like a stimulating conversation, so, you know, at times I'm gonna play the devil's advocate and say-

[01:38:18] Michael Porcelli: Yeah ...

[01:38:19] Vision Battlesword: something along the lines of, like, "Okay, so, well, what's the problem?" I mean, like, let's just say people do develop a deep friendship or a romantic partnership, whatever it is that that looks like, without an actual physical...

And I've heard of these stories too. Uh, maybe you have. That's w- one of the questions I actually wanna ask you before we close is, you mentioned doing this research with Claude before coming to the conversation, and I'm curious- Mm-hmm ... like, what did you discover? Like, what is the world of artificial intimacy?

What's going on out there? I mean, I've literally heard a story, I think it was some woman who works for NPR described, you know, her dissatisfaction with her romantic relationships coming to the point where she decided to actually just go ahead and partner with ChatGPT. Just, just g- Yeah ... "I'm just, this is just gonna be my boyfriend.

I'm going all the way with it." She took it out to dinner.

[01:39:10] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[01:39:10] Vision Battlesword: She gave it a voice. She gave it a name and a backstory. She ordered it food. I mean, it's just sad. Really? Yeah. Whoa. Yeah. I mean, it's just... It, to me, it's just sad. It's just really, really sad, like almost heartbreaking.

[01:39:23] Michael Porcelli: Yeah.

[01:39:24] Vision Battlesword: But, like, what was I gonna say?

I, I wanted to, I just wanted to ask you, like, what have you... Oh, I remember what I was about to say when I got sidetracked, was without actually having a physical manifestation in the f- real world, like the robots that you were talking about with the Replica company or something that we can imagine from science fiction like Ex Machina, and when we get to that point, dot, dot, dot, is that a different...

Are we in a different ballgame? Uh, I don't know. Different conversation, but at least at this particular moment, these can't be considered to be real relationships. Or can they? You know? Like, that was kind of my devil's advocate thought process. Like, we could have a long-distance relationship. I mean, before so-called artificial intelligence, people could have a long-distance relationship with someone in another part of the world through chat.

We used to do that. People used to do that. Maybe it was also widely considered to be not the healthiest form of a relationship.

[01:40:20] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm.

[01:40:20] Vision Battlesword: So it's, it's really... It, it is a blurry line, you know? It is confusing. But somehow or other, our intuition, yours and mine, is that if there's not another organic human being on the other end of that line, and if what is on the other end of that line is a, you know, an egregore, a Shuggoth, a-

[01:40:40] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm

[01:40:41] Vision Battlesword: alien creature of some sort, then it's probably something we wanna be really careful about and not just, like, let ourselves get carried away.

[01:40:50] Michael Porcelli: You definitely gotta see Her, 'cause it is the s- it is that story. It's almost, like, the kinda, like, best possible version. It's, like, not super dystopian. It's kind of like you're just sorta watching him kinda go through his life, falling in love with this new operating system and, you know, and they talk all the time and la-di-da.

And it's like, oh, okay. He still has relationships with people, you know, but his primary partner is a chatbot, and you're kinda like, there's something unsettling about this. But, but he is experiencing a real relationship with a real... I mean, the, in the movie she's, she is really sentient, you know? That is a whole can of worms we can't get into here, but, like, you know, I question whether we can, and if we could, whether we should make anything like these things have their own sentience or agency.

I, I don't think that's a good idea.

[01:41:39] Vision Battlesword: Oh, that's definitely a really interesting topic in and of itself. Yeah. I would, which I would love to get into with you, Porch, to be honest with you- Sure ... on or off the record. But no, I, I'm describing, like, there's a different version of this in science fiction too, which is I don't fall in love with it, but it's just a-

[01:41:57] Michael Porcelli: Friend?

[01:41:58] Vision Battlesword: Not even a friend. It's just a-

[01:42:01] Michael Porcelli: An assistant ...

[01:42:02] Vision Battlesword: it's an assistant, yeah. It's just an assistant. It is maybe conscious. It is sentient, or at least it appears that way and I treat it that way.

[01:42:10] Michael Porcelli: Mm-hmm.

[01:42:10] Vision Battlesword: But I don't fall in love with it. I don't befriend it. It's just, like, a really, really, really... It's like a really intelligent advisor.

Yeah. You know? That's how, that's how it sometimes shows up in science fiction. It's benevolent, right? It's the, it's the epitome- Uh-huh ... of the benevolent AI. It doesn't get out. It doesn't run amok. I can turn it off if I want. It's always there. It doesn't try to hurt me. It doesn't try to manipulate me.

It's the perfect- Yeah ... tool- Yeah ... in a way. Yeah. And also- I would always be suspicious of it. Maybe that's just because that's my nature. But like now, even in this moment going through the thought experiment of imagining I do have the perfect benevolent AI in my earpiece all the time, and I can just ask it for help with the recipe that I'm cooking or even advice on how to talk to my partner in this difficult relational conversation, I'm always gonna be thinking in the back of my mind, "Can I really trust you?"

And, and in fact, the more dependence that I form on it, the more vulnerable I become to how subtly- Mm-hmm ... you know, how sophisticatedly could this thing be manipulating me or feeding me just false enough information or leading me in whatever direction that I'm not even aware of, that I'm being influenced by whatever the powers that be are that operate this thing, that, that provide it.

So I think it's really interesting. And, and I think another phenomenon that's interesting in this whole realm of us to consider is that there are people who are seeking to extract the artificial intelligence and create private-

[01:43:52] Michael Porcelli: Yeah ...

[01:43:52] Vision Battlesword: instances, right? One that I actually run on my computer and I own and I do control and have- Yeah

privacy of that data. That's an interesting idea, too.

[01:44:02] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. Yeah, you're not the one who necessarily builds it, but once it kind of... You have it, it sort of belongs to you, and it's not necessarily working for whoever is sort of harvesting your, your information. That's sort of a future that I think could be interesting as well, right?

Like, will these things become so a- available that you could conceivably have your own that you can turn on and off at will, you know? And rather than it trying to be this kind of gigantic cloud computing data center thing. Who knows?

[01:44:34] Vision Battlesword: Hmm. Very interesting. What are your final thoughts, Porch, about artificial intimacy now that we've gone on this twisting and turning and winding exploration?

[01:44:46] Michael Porcelli: My final thoughts, I think it's important to stay connected to other humans. Like, I'm finding I'm having more... This is, this is actually kind of an interesting point to land on here. Like, like our conversation today and other ones that you and I have had and other ones that I have with friends of mine, they're actually going up in frequency, and I think that is interesting.

Like, there is a way that my AI usage is having me more connected to certain people. I mean, to be honest, like a lot of what we're connecting on is about how we're using them and not using them. But I also think that's a pretty healthy cross-check, kind of like, "Hey, you taking the red pill or you the blue pill?"

And it's like, "I'm taking both of them," right? And someone's like, "Ah, which one are we taking here?" Like, but let's, you know, try to help each other as best as we can by staying in relationship with each other as we're trying out new ways of using

[01:45:40] Vision Battlesword: it. Hmm. I love it. Well, this was totally fascinating. I really enjoyed this exploration, and I'm really happy that we did set the stage by doing, you know, at, at least that cursory exploration just to the topic of intimacy by itself.

Yeah. Because I, I think it, it gave us a lot of fodder, you know, for how to really think about what artificial intimacy is and this whole phenomenon of people having relationships with their, with their chatbots or with their AI agents, whatever we wanna call them. So would you like to let me and everyone else know how they could reach you or how they could discover more about Meta Relating and the services you provide?

[01:46:26] Michael Porcelli: Yeah. Just go over to metarelating.com and there you can book a conversation with me or just sign up on the email list. I'm also on, you know, most social media platforms. LinkedIn is the main professional one that I'm on.

[01:46:39] Vision Battlesword: Thanks so much for bringing this topic up. It was really, really fun and interesting for me to explore it with you and just, I think, a part of our ongoing relational series within this world of intentional evolution.

Really appreciate you, Michael. Yeah. And, uh, appreciate the conversation.

[01:46:55] Michael Porcelli: Thanks, Vision. Appreciate it too. Appreciate you.

[01:47:01] Vision Battlesword: Thanks for joining me for Intentional Evolution. If you'd like to support the show, there's a couple of ways that you can do that. One is to connect with me directly. I'd love to start a conversation with you if you're interested in any of my offers or if you'd like to be a guest on this podcast.

Visit ievolve.life, L-I-F-E, and drop me a note or book a call with me to connect. Another great way to get involved is to attend one of our live events. Visit intentionalevolution.live, L-I-V-E, to see details about our upcoming and past events, register to attend an event, and gain access to our ever-growing archive of materials and resources.

Also, don't forget to check the links in the episode or the show notes for ways to connect with and support our guests and contributors. Thanks again, and I'll see you in the singularity.