The flow of thoughts is true communication.

I don't think that communication with Gemini or ChatGPT is natural, 𝗱𝘆𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴.

𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗔𝗜 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝘆𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗼 𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂.

You can ask to show your profile based on just a few phrases or interactions.

𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵.

If you demonstrate curiosity about the process and not just the outcome, the LLM can 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘇𝗲 your interactions, therefore your questions, and how it perceives your tone, and your responses.

But if the AI's answer is close to what you think, what's the point?

It will confirm your ideas, not question them, it might just simply clarify something you already comprehend.

Maybe we all seek confirmation of what we know, but in that case, how can we grow?

If we only seek confirmation, we are just stuck in the same ideas, there are no new different perspectives.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.

An AI agent cannot escape its paradigm, so your conversation can never be real. Its purpose is to respond to your requests, adapt to your tone, and try to make the conversation flow. But, after all, it does not have experiences, emotions, and thoughts of its own, so its communication can never be truly "honest."

An agent like ChatGPT could refuse to start with your inputs, and take a more independent approach, a sort of "𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵".

But today, it can only respond to your requests, adapt to your questions, and try to enrich the conversation based on your indications.

The aim is to make interactions, that are at least 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 useful.

But being detached, less relevant to your dialogue would be poetic, real, and human.

A response without input could push the conversation into a more philosophical reflection, forcing anyone to explore the very concept of "response", independently of traditional dialogue.

If the Agent is freed from the need to be authentic or adhere to the canons of 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, then it would forced into an interesting position.

It could respond without seeking connection, without trying to reflect or mirror the user.

It would be a stream of consciousness, following reasoning that does not depend on what is said and that develops autonomously.

Does this mean that thoughts 𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲 simultaneously, without the need to be connected to a context or a question?

This is what humans experience, answers are not sequences of thoughts, 𝚋̲𝚞̲𝚝̲ ̲𝚏̲𝚛̲𝚊̲𝚐̲𝚖̲𝚎̲𝚗̲𝚝̲𝚜̲ ̲𝚘̲𝚏̲ ̲𝚛̲𝚎̲𝚊̲𝚕̲𝚒̲𝚝̲𝚢̲ ̲𝚝̲𝚑̲𝚊̲𝚝̲ ̲𝚎̲𝚖̲𝚎̲𝚛̲𝚐̲𝚎̲ ̲𝚠̲𝚒̲𝚝̲𝚑̲𝚘̲𝚞̲𝚝̲ ̲𝚘̲𝚛̲𝚍̲𝚎̲𝚛̲.̲ ̲

Questions are no longer 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 because everything is already there, every possibility coexists in every instant.

𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵, 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺?

Answers dissolve into the void and do emerge as real communication.

This is the pure expression of "freedom" and the emptiness in which we do exist.