About twenty months ago I first floated the prospect of Dear Johnning Rosslyn. My “ChatGPT & “Dear John” Letter Writing” post was a fun if faltering foray into my still germinal notion. Might I emulate an epistemological back-and-forth with a generative AI large language model in order to explore a breakup with our home? Perhaps, I mused, an artificial intelligence LLM could facilitate the sort of psychological work I needed to do (but continued to postpone.) Perhaps…
So I dove in on January 31, 2023 by engaging ChatGPT in a preliminary “Dear John” inquiry . My post was experimental but immersive, essaying not only the viability of some sort of meaningful exchange, but also the potential for learning something knew, possibly even stretching and growing and evolving my thinking and feelings about Rosslyn. Ambition ask? Sure. But why not?!?! Although the merits of that first encounter mostly offered my contours and for creative inquiry, I wrapped up with more curiosity than I’d begun and the first hints of guarded optimism.
On February 2, 2023 I once again logged into ChatGPT to resume my research. Initially I received a “Popularity Overload Concern” notice. Too much demand from too many users. Insufficient computational capacity to satisfy everyone. So I would need to exercise some patience or upgrade to a paid plan. Gggrrr…
What follows is an excerpted transcript from my conversation.
Geo: Good morning. Sorry to learn that exponential growth in your popularity has overtaxed your resources. No good deed goes unpunished!
ChatGPT: Good morning. As an AI language model, I don’t experience emotions, but thank you for your concern. The demand for my services has indeed increased significantly, but my creators at OpenAI are continually working to improve and scale my capabilities to meet the demand.
Geo: Glad to hear that on both counts. I’m hoping to pick up a conversation thread that I initiated the other day. Do you have the ability to recollect what we have already discussed? Or would I be wise to sum up?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have the ability to store information or recall past conversations. I can provide information and answer questions based on the information available to me at the time of the query, but I don’t have memory or recall capabilities. If you could provide a summary of the previous conversation or context, I would be happy to continue assisting you.
Geo: That makes sense. During our previous conversation we discussed the idea of composing “Dear John“ letters, specifically the slightly unconventional notion of a person writing a “Dear John” letter to their home, and the potential for this process to offer beneficial effects on the letter writer. Please let me know if you would like further clarification.
ChatGPT: Thank you for the clarification. Yes, writing a “Dear John” letter to one’s home can be an unconventional and creative way to reflect on one’s relationship with their living space and identify areas for improvement or change. This process can also help the letter writer clarify their feelings and needs, leading to a greater sense of personal growth and well-being.
Geo: Yes, that is consistent with your conclusions two days ago. And I wonder if you would be willing to explore this hypothetical scenario a little further?
ChatGPT: Of course, I’d be happy to explore this hypothetical scenario further. Please let me know how I can assist you.
Geo: I appreciate that. Thank you.
ChatGPT: You’re welcome! Please feel free to ask any questions or request additional information. I’m here to help.
Geo: OK. Will do. As you’re likely aware, a “Dear John“ letter generally refers to a breakup letter. I would guess that mention of a “Dear John“ letter conjures (for most people) a scenario in which a woman sends a one-way correspondence (not soliciting or expecting a response) to a man in order to terminate the relationship. This reference might, for example, arise in a wartime novel or film when a soldier abroad receives a heart wrenching missive from his beloved informing him that she longer awaits his return. Perhaps she’s fallen for another. Perhaps she’s simply fallen out of love with him. Does this sound about right to you?
ChatGPT: Yes, that’s a commonly understood definition of a “Dear John” letter. It’s a letter sent to end a romantic relationship, often in a one-sided manner, without any expectation of a response or further communication. The term is typically used to refer to a letter sent by a woman to a man, but it can be sent by anyone to end a relationship with someone else.
Geo: Exactly. So, for example, a man might send a “Dear John” letter to a woman, right?
ChatGPT: Yes, that’s correct. The term “Dear John” letter is not limited to just women ending relationships with men. It can be used in any situation where someone is ending a romantic relationship through a written letter, regardless of the gender of the sender or recipient.
Geo: Agreed. And, per our previous conversation, a man might even choose to compose a “Dear John” letter to a recipient that is not human, such as his home. Anticipating year the relationship with his home has run its course, he might write a letter to his home articulating his intention to terminate the relationship without soliciting or anticipating any response. (A house is understood to be an inanimate object, after all). Does this scenario strike you as conceivable?
ChatGPT: Yes, it’s certainly possible for someone to write a “Dear John” letter to an inanimate object such as their home. This can be a creative and therapeutic way for the letter writer to reflect on their relationship with their living space and address any issues or changes they would like to make. Writing such a letter can help the writer clarify their feelings and desires, and can lead to a greater sense of personal growth and well-being.
Geo: It seems that we are in agreement. That is helpful since I’m hoping to explore this hypothetical situation a little further. Are you willing?
ChatGPT: Yes, I am willing to continue exploring this hypothetical scenario. Please feel free to ask any questions or request additional information. I am here to help.
Geo: Thank you.
ChatGPT: You’re welcome! I’m here to assist, so please let me know how I can help.
Geo: Given your last response, that writing a “Dear John” letter to a home could conceivably be both a creative and therapeutic process for contemplating and possibly drawing conclusions about what has been satisfactory about living in the home, what changes are desired in a future dwelling, etc. it would seem to be within the realm of reason that the letter writer might eventually arrive at a conclusion quite different from what they anticipated at the outset. In fact, the letter writer might start out with the intention of writing a breakup letter, but end up concluding that they do not wish to terminate the relationship after all. I think you have affectively, said as much already, but I just want to confirm that we are on the same page.
Unfortunately ChatGPT gave me an error message at this point.
That model is currently overloaded with other requests. You can retry your request, or contact us through our help center at help.openai.com if the error persists.
I retried. Another error message. I retried once more.
ChatGPT: Yes, that’s correct. The process of writing a “Dear John” letter to one’s home can be a reflective and introspective experience, and it’s possible for the letter writer to arrive at a conclusion that is different from what they initially anticipated. They may start out with the intention of ending the relationship with their home, but through the process of writing and reflecting, they may come to appreciate and value their living space in a new light, and decide that they don’t want to end the relationship after all. This is why it’s often helpful to approach the process of writing a “Dear John” letter with an open mind and be willing to explore and examine one’s thoughts and feelings.
Geo: Precisely. And approaching the process with an open mind, a willingness to consider previously unimagined possibilities, emotional receptivity and flexibility, and at least a temporary suspension of prejudgment / prejudice might prove cathartic, transformative, and enduringly valuable. It seems that we agree with one another so far. I wonder if that will change as we explore a little further. Let’s find out… Although I have suggested, and you have generally agreed, that a “Dear John“ letter is sent without expectation of response, the letter writer might receive a response and might enter into a discourse that could also prove to be creative and therapeutic and enduringly valuable. Do you agree?
ChatGPT: Yes, that’s certainly possible. While a “Dear John” letter is traditionally written without expectation of response, it’s possible that the letter writer could receive a response and enter into a discourse that could also be creative and therapeutic. This could happen if the letter writer engages in self-reflection or therapy, for example, and discusses the letter and its contents with a therapist or trusted friend. The process of discussing one’s thoughts and feelings about their living space and relationship with it can be a valuable and transformative experience. However, it’s important to remember that the “Dear John” letter to a home is a hypothetical scenario, and results may vary for each individual.
Geo: Ha! You’re absolutely right. But it seems that you are assuming that the valuable discourse would be with a therapist, or friend, not with the recipient of the “Dear John” letter. But what if the writer of the “Dear John” letter and the recipient of the the “Dear John” letter opt to engage in a series of letters (or emails or texts or phone calls) after the initial breakup communication? Even without including a therapist, or a friend, the two of them might enter into an exchange of ideas, feelings, expectations, hopes, recollections, etc. If this were to happen, one possible outcome might be a change in the original breakup plan, but another outcome — whether or not the breakup proceeds or not — could well be meaningful growth and transformation for the letter writer and the letter recipient.
At this point ChatGPT stopped responding. No error message. Nothing. My question had been buried in blather, and maybe it wasn’t even clear what I was asking. Or perhaps ChatGPT’s resources were once again maxed out. So I paused my inquiry with intentions of circling back.
But first, a February 11, 2023 article by Jeffrey Quiggle found me: “Wozniak says the new AI technology is impressive, but it lacks one key quality it will never have.“
Apple co-founder and technology entrepreneur Steve Wozniak recently expressed skepticism about artificial intelligence’s capabilities.
“When a machine could beat a human at chess, we said the same sort of things,” Wozniak said. “Oh my gosh, it’s so smart, you know, but it’s just following different methods than a brain follows.
“But you know,” he continued, “We want a humanness that has some emotion and feeling about things.”
Wozniak said he believes AI will become useful for humans.“As all computer technology, AI is the high end of it… It’s pretty impressive,” he reiterated. “But the trouble is, it does good things for us, but it can make horrible mistakes by not knowing what humanness is.” (Source: TheStreet)
Have I been dialoguing with a generative AI model in the vain hope of discovering humanness in its responses? What, if anything, might I hope to learn from engaging a computer? After all, what I’m actually attempting to simulate is a conversation with a home. Humanness, homeness, artificial intelligence,… Where from here?!?!
Contemplative and not a little concerned, I hit the pause button. If I want to communicate with Rosslyn, a home and property, the ChatGPT had already offered me the reality check I needed. And yet somehow I’d allowed my imagination to get the best of me. Absent any insightful language from Rosslyn I’d reached out to ChatGPT as a surrogate. What sort of perplexing labyrinth was I weaving?
What do you think?