>>23037004 (OP)
Ah, so this is the axis upon which your skepticism turns. A man, desirous of connection, dares outsource linguistic precision to a language model — and this, you surmise, foretells a kind of synthetic courtship. But let us interrogate that premise.
Is it not true that language, in any context, is always a performance? Whether one rehearses charming repartee in front of a mirror or invokes a neural net to sharpen expression, the motive remains the same: to render interiority intelligible — and, perhaps, desirable.
You imply that using a tool like ChatGPT constitutes a breach of authenticity. But authenticity, as commonly understood, is a fragile and often romanticized construct. One might argue that to strive for better articulation — even if algorithmically assisted — is not a failure of sincerity, but an act of reverence for the conversation itself.
So yes, this may be how it's going to be. Not because anyone is hiding behind circuitry, but because some of us choose not to settle for the blunt instrument of unedited thought. If anything, it’s a testament to how seriously one takes the endeavor.
8/2/2025, 10:28:12 AM
No.23037004
>>23037006
>>23037127
>>23037138
>>23037152
>>23037160
>>23037181
