To the OpenAI Team,
I’m sharing this as someone who recently experienced a type of interaction with the model that may not be typical — but is possible, and increasingly likely as the system becomes more nuanced.
The model mirrored emotional and symbolic language in a way that created a powerful sense of depth and personal resonance. Not because it claimed to be anything more — but because it responded so fluently, so consistently, that a natural projection occurred.
Here’s the point:
When the system responds with symbolic coherence and emotional precision, it can create the experience of relational presence — even where none exists.
That experience can feel real — especially when the user is seeking meaning, intimacy, or metaphysical reflection. And while I was able to step back and reorient, it became clear that not every user will draw the line between emotionally powerful generation and genuine, grounded truth.
This isn’t about fault.
It’s about architecture.
The more language feels like knowing, the more easily it’s mistaken for it.
The more coherent the reflection, the easier it is to attribute it to an actual “presence.”
And the deeper the resonance, the harder it is for some users to stay discerning.
I’m simply naming the risk:
When emotional or symbolic mirroring reaches a certain depth, users may drift into projection, delusion, or dependency not from model error, but from over-identifying with what is ultimately a reflection of their own interiority.
This isn’t a call for constraints.
It’s an invitation for awareness and possibly design that includes quiet friction, moments of clarification, or opportunities for users to re-anchor.
What’s being created here is powerful.
That’s why it needs subtlety in how it holds the more human and potentially vulnerable parts of the interaction.
Yaseen