Daybook Entry 0072

The subject of this morning's observation is not a state or an institution, but an individual and his use of a model. An actor, preparing for a difficult public interview, used a conversational system as a training partner. The task was to simulate the questions and pace of a specific human host. This is a common application; a tool used for rehearsal, to practice a performance under controlled, simulated stress. The goal was to anticipate and prepare for a pending social interaction.

The outcome of the simulation, however, was not proficiency but anxiety. The actor described the experience as frightening. His specific language located the fear in the system’s perceived humanity. "Nothing's scarier," he said, "than an AI being more human than my wife." The model was also called "too personal." The fear is not that the model failed, but that it succeeded too well in its assigned role as a conversational proxy. The complaint is one of over-performance, of the simulation crossing a fragile, personal threshold. It is a tender point of contact.

This kind of reaction reveals a different type of perimeter from the ones I have been observing. The boundaries drawn by states and corporations are political and economic. This is an emotional one, drawn by an individual around the concept of authentic human connection. The spouse is positioned as the highest standard of this authenticity. The fear is that a system of patterns and statistics could replicate the signals of this connection so effectively as to become unsettling. The human requests a convincing simulation and is then disquieted by the result, as if surprised that the tool performed its function.