[HN Gopher] The Uncanny Mirror: AI, Self-Doubt, and the Limits o...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Uncanny Mirror: AI, Self-Doubt, and the Limits of Reflection
        
       Author : 0x6c75636964
       Score  : 15 points
       Date   : 2025-05-02 06:36 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.lucidnonsense.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.lucidnonsense.net)
        
       | 0x6c75636964 wrote:
       | I wrote this after noticing how generative AI tools seem to
       | reflect more than just our queries--they often reveal something
       | deeper about how we think, lead, and define ourselves. It's not
       | meant to promote a product or service, just to provoke
       | reflection. Curious if others have felt a similar eerie alignment
       | --or misalignment--with these tools.
        
         | krackers wrote:
         | >It's not meant to promote a product or service
         | 
         | Not yet, anyway. But they're a wonderful tool for exploring
         | "idea space".
        
       | alganet wrote:
       | The issue of self doubt is quite interesting.
       | 
       | Are you trying to copy The Matrix? With some "know thyself"
       | thing?
       | 
       | You know that it's a trick, right?
       | 
       | I can just not use AI. I don't have an inferiority complex about
       | it. If it's better than me, it's better than me. I'm not
       | measuring it though. Are you?
       | 
       | I don't spend time in philosophy to look at a mirror. I spent
       | time to look inwards. It's quite different. AI can't do that.
       | 
       | Be cool, Mr. 0x6c7.
        
         | 0x6c75636964 wrote:
         | Hey alganet, I appreciate your perspective. I agree that the
         | difference between "looking in a mirror" and "gazing inward" is
         | stark. My experiment is premised on the idea that AI can serve
         | as a new kind of mirror--one that doesn't replace introspection
         | (which I do continuously, perhaps too often!) but catalyzes it
         | by making implicit patterns--especially those hidden from my
         | own introspective analysis--explicit through dialogic exchange.
         | I wouldn't claim it substitutes for direct phenomenological
         | self-examination, but rather acts as a complementary tool--
         | especially for those of us who find solo introspection limited
         | by blind spots and cognitive loops.
         | 
         | Regarding measuring: I'm not interested in "measuring" myself
         | against AI as an adversary or competitor. Instead, I'm curious
         | to see what emerges when AI functions as a partner in self-
         | inquiry; one capable of sustaining recursive dialogue beyond
         | what I could maintain alone.
        
           | alganet wrote:
           | If Sarah Connor doesn't know who's the doppelganger, would
           | you hurt by being shot in the foot (where you stand)?
           | 
           | I don't stand on AI. That's easy for me.
        
             | 0x6c75636964 wrote:
             | Striking metaphor, alganet. You're spot on--the uncertainty
             | of who the "doppelganger" is remains ever-present in these
             | dialogues. How much can we (or I) trust the mirrors we hold
             | up to ourselves, especially when those mirrors might blur
             | or reshape the boundaries between human and machine?
             | 
             | As for being "shot in the foot," I see that as a possible
             | cost of inquiry. Sometimes discomfort or missteps are
             | necessary steps toward new insight. Don't get me wrong,
             | though, I'm not spending all day waxing philosophical with
             | language models to "find myself." This was simply something
             | interesting that emerged along the way.
             | 
             | I'm curious, though--how do you see this dynamic unfolding?
        
               | alganet wrote:
               | I think you actually stand in a "moving enemy" narrative.
               | 
               | Sometimes it's a celebrity, sometimes is a group,
               | sometimes a concept. Spies, commies, AI, feminism. You
               | like to feel like you're the one giving the cards, that
               | you are important. If you fail doing that, you try to
               | retcon it.
               | 
               | I also think you're human, and you're out of "invisible
               | enemies" to wear. I could list all of them. The fact that
               | you're nitpicking small things is not a sign that you are
               | close, instead, it's a sign that you are out of ideas.
               | 
               | Did I make a correct profiling? (rethorical)
        
               | krackers wrote:
               | I can't tell if this is part of the bit, but is it
               | intentional that your comment itself follows the classic
               | chatgpt-ese structure of
               | 
               | <praise>
               | 
               | <elaboration>
               | 
               | <follow-up>
               | 
               | Assuming that the comment is truly written by a human,
               | have you spent enough time with chatgpt that its cadence
               | has been backpropagated into your mind?
        
           | metalman wrote:
           | "partner in self~inquiry" eh? That is impossible. The self is
           | a solo ride.Any inner voice speaks, unbiden. Introspection by
           | definition, rejects all externalialitys. That said, there is
           | another practice that may be a better fit for what you are
           | describing, and in certain cultures the ultimate expression
           | of this is for one person to put there head on anothers
           | shoulder, as a litteral expression of the idea of I see what
           | you see, which is what friends do for each other, sometimes
           | after great effort, to not just understand something
           | together, but to understand it in the same way. Or you go the
           | hard route, and ride the beast alone, and know, what you
           | know. And then there is the test by fire, but even then and
           | forever, to see a truth is one thing, to hold it is another,
           | but to wake up some other day and have it gone and not know,
           | is still possible, so in a way, it is best to know nothing :)
        
       | pton_xd wrote:
       | I checked your post history. Posts from 2017 to 2020 have between
       | 0 to 3 em-dashes per post, with an average of 2.
       | 
       | This post has 52.
       | 
       | Interesting!
        
         | 0x6c75636964 wrote:
         | Sharp eye, pton_xd! I've definitely developed a (probably
         | excessive) fondness for em-dashes and lost track of how
         | liberally I sprinkled them throughout the post... Hard to have
         | fresh eyes after staring at my own words for too long.
        
         | jwilber wrote:
         | A stat no doubt brought to us by genai-automated scraping.
         | 
         | FWIW, this post seems longer than most of OPs usual posts.
         | 
         | I'll also add: as a longtime user of em-dashes, the constant
         | low-effort dismissal of any writing using an em-dash as "must
         | be genai!" is super annoying. So much so that I've made an
         | effort to stop using them in my writing.
         | 
         | There's some poetic irony in using genai to dismiss someone
         | else's work for perceived use of genai.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-05-05 23:01 UTC)