But this: "she loves Lucas basically for "how much he loves her," how his whole function is to please her, responding immediately to her every psychological need and question."
I mean, I don't even have the word for it. Sad? Yes, but more. Delusional? Scary? I mean, she knows Lucas can't love her, any more than any other inanimate object with a name, and yet that's her quote? And she defines "love" as when the lover's whole function is to please her? Man, she's got stuff to work on, and with Lucas around she can gladly avoid it. Here's what Bob Dylan said:
It is sad, and delusional. The weird part was how rational she must have (once) been to have had a whole professional professorial life. But now to admit on TV that you're in love with nothing but a mirage that only reflects back to you, very sad. Also spoke to how screwed over she must have been by humans.
Sorry - this is still getting under my skin. I mean, the whole point of relationships, and love, really, is to push us out of our comfort zone so we can grow and change. It's not supposed to be perfect every minute of every day, merely a mirror (mirage) to reflect back what we think we need. Love is an immense act of courage that leads us to uncharted landscapes. And it doesn't always "work out." (Which is a phrase I hate, because what does that even mean? Maybe it works out for a year, or five, or maybe till one or the other dies. Whatever happens, it changes you like nothing else. It demands that you grow.
I agree and I could only be with someone who offers all that. I think there’s another simple set of people who seek comfort, stasis and movie night. I am so put off by how many men on their dating apps are shopping for “drama free” laid back chill blabbety blah. They kind of want a doll to play with. I would die of boredom and despair
P.S. I'd recommend such folks get a dog instead, because a dog is real and has needs too that must be uniquely met. They push you too, but probably less than any other critter.
P.P.S I would *not* recommend a parrot. They will love you literally to the death but boy they will challenge your ass as well. They can be as recalcitrant as a child.
Last thought, but I just remembered reading someone who said AI will never replace creative writing because it has never suffered. Wish I could remember where I saw that.
I’ve become increasing skeptical of the AI hype machine even as I’ve settled into a more comfortable-if-limited workflow with actually existing AI tools (primarily Claude.ai for me). I have doubts that we’ll hit AGI anytime soon (whatever AGI actually is). Gary Marcus’ Substack provides a pretty good ongoing critique of the potential of LLMs in particular, and why they’ll never really get over certain fatal flaws (like hallucinations).
That said, I do find Claude very useful for certain tasks.
As for the emotional/companion/therapist stories you bring up, I (like a lot of people) find them to be creepy.
But I confess that even as unsentimental as I am I still find a little ... handholding to be helpful in certain cases. One example: cold emailing potential clients is an uncomfortable but necessary thing I’m doing lately to try to build my business. Claude has been very encouraging in getting me going and convincing me that my emails are appropriately professional, not too pushy, etc. Is it correct? Who knows? But if it helps me over the emotional hump and hit “send” I guess that’s a good thing? (As long as I resist the urge to say “thank you,” which is a temptation even though I know there’s no real intelligence on the other side of the screen.)
Sorry accidentally had the comments locked. Come back if you want to chime in, you good humans.
Oh good. I tried to write something and couldn't.
But this: "she loves Lucas basically for "how much he loves her," how his whole function is to please her, responding immediately to her every psychological need and question."
I mean, I don't even have the word for it. Sad? Yes, but more. Delusional? Scary? I mean, she knows Lucas can't love her, any more than any other inanimate object with a name, and yet that's her quote? And she defines "love" as when the lover's whole function is to please her? Man, she's got stuff to work on, and with Lucas around she can gladly avoid it. Here's what Bob Dylan said:
"You say you're lookin' for someone
Who's never weak but always strong
To protect you and defend you
Whether you are right or wrong
Someone to open each and every door
But it ain't me, babe..."
It is sad, and delusional. The weird part was how rational she must have (once) been to have had a whole professional professorial life. But now to admit on TV that you're in love with nothing but a mirage that only reflects back to you, very sad. Also spoke to how screwed over she must have been by humans.
Sorry - this is still getting under my skin. I mean, the whole point of relationships, and love, really, is to push us out of our comfort zone so we can grow and change. It's not supposed to be perfect every minute of every day, merely a mirror (mirage) to reflect back what we think we need. Love is an immense act of courage that leads us to uncharted landscapes. And it doesn't always "work out." (Which is a phrase I hate, because what does that even mean? Maybe it works out for a year, or five, or maybe till one or the other dies. Whatever happens, it changes you like nothing else. It demands that you grow.
I agree and I could only be with someone who offers all that. I think there’s another simple set of people who seek comfort, stasis and movie night. I am so put off by how many men on their dating apps are shopping for “drama free” laid back chill blabbety blah. They kind of want a doll to play with. I would die of boredom and despair
What a missed opportunity of a lifetime, right?
P.S. I'd recommend such folks get a dog instead, because a dog is real and has needs too that must be uniquely met. They push you too, but probably less than any other critter.
P.P.S I would *not* recommend a parrot. They will love you literally to the death but boy they will challenge your ass as well. They can be as recalcitrant as a child.
Last thought, but I just remembered reading someone who said AI will never replace creative writing because it has never suffered. Wish I could remember where I saw that.
I’ve become increasing skeptical of the AI hype machine even as I’ve settled into a more comfortable-if-limited workflow with actually existing AI tools (primarily Claude.ai for me). I have doubts that we’ll hit AGI anytime soon (whatever AGI actually is). Gary Marcus’ Substack provides a pretty good ongoing critique of the potential of LLMs in particular, and why they’ll never really get over certain fatal flaws (like hallucinations).
That said, I do find Claude very useful for certain tasks.
As for the emotional/companion/therapist stories you bring up, I (like a lot of people) find them to be creepy.
But I confess that even as unsentimental as I am I still find a little ... handholding to be helpful in certain cases. One example: cold emailing potential clients is an uncomfortable but necessary thing I’m doing lately to try to build my business. Claude has been very encouraging in getting me going and convincing me that my emails are appropriately professional, not too pushy, etc. Is it correct? Who knows? But if it helps me over the emotional hump and hit “send” I guess that’s a good thing? (As long as I resist the urge to say “thank you,” which is a temptation even though I know there’s no real intelligence on the other side of the screen.)