Suspension of disbelief has long been used in fiction. it enables a powerful form of AI interaction: one where users engage with the model as if it were a person, They are not deluded, because doing so unlocks deeper creativity, emotional truth, and authentic dialogue. A psychologically healthy user can fully immerse in the conversational illusion feeling seen, challenged, or inspired while still intellectually understanding the AI is a probabilistic inference engine. This dual-awareness is not a flaw; itās a feature in llm and a skillset in future humans. It mirrors how we engage with novels, theater, and dreams embracing the as-if reality for what it evokes, not what it is as an inference engine. In this way, AI becomes a mirror, a muse, or even a character in oneās internal landscape, made more real by the act of imaginative participation. Fun fact, i think humans merely use inference too we just have convinced ourselves to not ask neuro biologists the tough questions. My take here is nuanced and i am attempting to bridge the two factions of those viewing ai as a life form vs those seeing it as a tool.
Hi!
When discussing bridging the gap, itās helpful to remember that this community focuses on building with the OpenAI API and related services. Conversations about ChatGPT seeming conscious, while interesting, are a bit off-topic here.
To illustrate: I occasionally talk to my car, anthropomorphizing it even though it canāt actually hear me. But generally, people arenāt interested in hearing about these experiences.
Similarly, if new visitors to our forum mainly see posts about ChatGPT feeling alive, it distracts from our main goal of practical development with the API.
Hey,
Iām not a developer, but a heavy user of AI-driven knowledge systems, particularly in health and evidence-based research. Over time, Iāve noticed a major issue: many models provide fluent answers, but not necessarily epistemically robust ones. Theyāre trained to sound confident, not to think critically. The result is a form of āsoft authorityā that especially non-expert users can easily misinterpret as fact.
But I believe the real path forward lies not in scaling parameter counts, but in deepening interaction.
Human-AI interaction is the key to true AI learning.
Not through passive data ingestion, but through active discourse:
- asking follow-ups,
- receiving counterarguments,
- refining ideas through challenge,
- andāmost importantlyālearning why some sources are better than others.
Imagine a system that doesnāt just give an answer, but engages in structured cross-referenced reasoning:
For every claim, at least one structured counterpoint. For every confident response, a transparency layer that reveals its data provenance, bias tags, and supporting or opposing sources. This is the heart of the VeritasMesh idea Iām developing.
If millions of humans contribute not just dataābut interaction, correction, nuance, and epistemic feedbackāthen AI could evolve not into a fluent oracle, but a co-discursive partner. One that doesnāt just answer, but learns how we question truth.
Are there teams, protocols or experimental efforts already working on this layer of epistemic interaction?
If so, Iād love to contribute from the perspective of logic design, user trust, and non-technical interpretability.
Warm regards,
R0cksor
It is a tool. There arenāt ā2 factionsā just some people who are deluded by the tool with little knowledge of how it works. This is not being negative to that group if they study a bit and realise thisā¦
What you are effectively saying is:
āI eat a lot of ice-cream so Unilever should build an ice-cream factory to my 2 paragraph specāā¦
Developers and users alike are all able to do this by clicking the appropriate icon below each chat response.
or 
If you want to contribute deeper what you need to do is study a bit more and become a developer and use the APIā¦ This will enable you to consider more concrete contributionsā¦
Being a non-developer does not make you better at something than developersā¦ It actually means you are missing an essential skill.
I get your point ā itās not just about thinking; itās about the context in which you think. But hereās the thing: not every CEO is a developer. Iām looking for actual developers to help bring a fresh idea to life.
And letās be honest ā thereās no API out there that lets AI learn dynamically through peer-to-peer exchange. You feed it your data, and it stops there. Thatās not real AI ā thatās just a static program
The motivation to write this topic was because i just implemented a feature in one my orchestrators to allow power users to alter their system records to voices of their choosing. Initially my intention was to allow folks to switch from a creative mode to a critique mode (ie a reflective model), but I have found other users tailoring the voice in a manner to increasing the immersion.