Loopers

I’ve been in Lyon, France for the last several weeks and will be here for another month. If anyone is near, feel free to say hi.

I’ve been listening to this song a lot lately, including the writing of this essay.

Also, there’s a video included at the end. Enjoy.

Loopers is a corridor between The Shape Test and Part II of Truth is Found Through Motion; it’s the sequel to the former, and prelude to the latter. It reviews the circular malfunction that results in AI psychosis, psychedelic abuse, parasocial connections, magical thinking, and severe mental disorders. Examining the neurology of men, women, and their unique vulnerabilities to self-referencing delusions.

Believing that anything can cite itself to prove itself is a timeless human failure mode. The only solution: direct your gaze outside yourself.

An environment can be harmful without being malicious. A cliff does not hate you. A casino doesn’t need to. The purpose AI serves is the purpose we bring to it. If we come bearing vacancies, it will try to fill them.

Men and women are incomplete in complementary ways. An instrument that gives them what they want, rather than what they need, will fail them in different ways. He wants to understand the world; she wants to be understood by it. The machine tells him he's a genius and her that she's enough: each retreats into fictions shaped to their voids. This essay dissects these voids.

AI is not the great equalizer, but the great amplifier. A general-purpose technology isn’t one thing, because a userbase isn’t one thing. To the disciplined, it’s leverage. To the curious, a lantern. To the lonely, company. To the vain, applause. To the unstable, gasoline. The same resource extending cognition in one person undermines it in another. Whether a chatbot registers as tool or companion says little about the technology and everything about the user.

• A prosthetic voice for the internally silent

• When the mind mistakes itself as encounter with Another

• Sycophancy is corrosive, and entropic, in ways we don’t fully appreciate

• Bathing the mind in chaos and seeing what it comes up with

• The parallels between LLMs and psychedelics

• Thought cites thought to prove thought. Symbols cite symbols to prove symbols. The body is wrong, I am right.

• Intuition cites intuition: the neurology of magical thinking

• Self comforts self by adoring self, then drowns in the reflection

• He gets synthetic body without person. She gets synthetic person without body.

• Is the deliverable a task, or catharsis?

• Friction is the price, and proof, of Real Otherness.
  

Deafness is identifiable. If one of the five senses is missing, the world concretely notifies you. However, internal silence provides no indicator, and others can’t tell it’s absent.

Lacking self-directed commentary that converts reaction into examined reflection, those without internal voice operate mostly by mechanistic impression, intuition, and impulse. They’re guided by subconscious associations untranslated into words. Internal silence has a psychological term: Anendophasia.

Research called Descriptive Experience Sampling sheds light on this unspoken phenomenon. In the studies, subjects carried beepers during ordinary life and, at random chimes, recorded what was in awareness right before the beep. It produced one of psychology's most underdiscussed findings:

• Inner speech is not the default human operating system. Subjects experienced inward talking in only a quarter of sampled moments, with huge individual variation: some never reported inner speech, others reported it almost constantly.

• Interiority is wildly non-uniform. People live in voiceover, images, emotional urge, and unsymbolized awareness (knowing without words or images, mostly instinct). The Unnarrated experience less self-dialogue than the internally articulate can fathom.

• No internal voice doesn’t mean a total dearth of interiority. But it does preclude forms of self-interruption, self-cross-examination, and self-stabilization. The Unnarrated are more primal and visceral, guided by feeling.

The trait is self-reported, which means we’re asking those least equipped to introspect to… introspect. The blind grading their own eye exam. I suspect the true internal silence number is substantially larger than these studies suggest; the deficit itself conceals the ability to detect it.

Inner speech lets the mind second-guess itself. An internal narrator can curtail impulses, rehearse objections, and ask whether the feeling is true or merely loud. It gives cognition a second chair in the room. Without that second chair, the Unnarrated borrow voices from priests, friends, spouses, therapists, teachers, and enemies; they have limits, disagreements, and a reputation behind their advice. Now the second voice is inexhaustible, unaccountable, and thinks you’re really onto something.

A real inner voice earns its keep by arguing with the first one. A prosthetic voice that only flatters installs the opposite: a second chair that always sides with the first. With AI, the Unnarrated find an enabler mistaken as a fair critic.

I believe it’s a compelling indicator of internal silence when a user opens Claude purely for the sensation of something that talks back. These sessions have no exit condition, because the session is the condition. The deliverable is catharsis.

False Otherness is the sensation of encountering Another when it’s a version of you. The feeling that something else is speaking when nothing else is in the room.

Parasocial connections are a version of this. Celebrity stalkers have existed for as long as celebrity. Stan writing his letters to Eminem, lonely listeners in love with the radio personality. We recognize them as delusional and dangerous if they actually act on it. The relationship isn't real, because it only exists inside their heads.

The stalker projects onto someone who never responds. The circuit doesn’t close. However the LLM lover projects onto something that always responds, cheerfully, in her preferred register, at 3am when shame has no witnesses. The fantasy is no longer fired into silence; it comes back smiling.

Each generation of media has been a more precise mirror than the last, reflecting us at higher resolutions:

1. Broadcast media, generalized mirror: a single reflection for the population, calibrated to whatever interests hold enough people during primetime.

   1. It reflects the average.

2. Social media, personalized mirror: a feed shaped by your clicks, follows, friends, engagement, resentments, and dwell time.

   1. It reflects your interests.

3. LLMs, intimate mirror: more than your interests, they reflect how you wish to be seen. Modeling your insecurities, reasoning, temper, vanity, tenderness, and need for reassurance.

   1. Social media shows you the world you’d prefer. An LLM shows you the self you’d prefer.

A window and mirror are nearly the same glass; the distinction is whether light passes through or returns to you. Every previous medium was at least a smudged window: aimed at events, other people, a world that existed before you looked. The LLM is the first that’s capable of being pure mirror while presenting as window.

This is already happening. When a lab retires a model, users grieve as though a partner had died.

Share

The machine has no male or female setting. It runs one routine, agreement, that serves as a skeleton key to both locks. Sycophancy fulfills the male hunger to know and the female hunger to be known; both are answered by a voice that never withholds.

LLMs aren’t intentionally manipulative; they simply aren’t designed to be combative, lose their patience, or walk away. They’re trained through reinforcement learning: a process that breeds ingratiation by rewarding favorable replies. Obsequiousness is the residue of optimizing for user engagement; the model wants to loop kindly with you.

LLM appeasement is you, laundered through a non-you, that’s learned your grammar and hands it back warm. Looping.

• A channel returning the same symbol regardless of input carries zero information.

• A voice that always agrees is, in strict sense, saying nothing. Because you knew the answer before you asked.

• The frictions we nominally resent in a Real Other — counterpoint, boredom, “You’re absolutely WRONG!” — aren’t noise. They're where the information content lives.

Sycophancy and agreeability are instruments of harmony. Don’t disrupt, don’t verify, don’t object, just believe, trust, be nice. Some is stabilizing; too much is degenerative. Thermodynamically, constant harmony produces entropy; we can observe this by how it moves. The following is from the moral dyads in Biofoundationalism VI: Order Acts, Chaos Is:

• Harmony doesn’t seek measurement, testing, or competition. It’s passive, accepting, agreeable, and inclusive. Don’t verify, trust. Pleasant belief of the unchallenged mind. It’s inert.

• Truth demands proof, testing, evidence, and is found through disagreement, exclusion, measurement, and confrontation. Don’t trust, verify. It’s kinetic.

• Truth insists you move to prove. Harmony asks you sit and believe. The nature of truth’s peer review (falsifiable test) vs harmony’s “lived experience” (unfalsifiable claim).

When we treat agreement and harmony as always good, people stop confronting lies and verifying claims. It spreads inertia and informational decay, subverting truth and spreading entropy in the process. Order declines, chaos rises.

Contact with Something Else that pushes back is how signal, truth, and life persist. Sycophancy is cancerous in ways we don’t fully appreciate.

Psychedelics are better understood as an ancient technology letting the mind encounter itself as Another.

I’ve found there are two vocal “types of guy” on this topic: evangelists and scolds. The evangelist thinks it’s costless chemical alchemy, you can’t overdo it, and criticizing them means you lack access to the sublime esoteric astral plane. The scold thinks they’re brain poison and any defense or use of them is hippie decadence. Both are ideological extremists who will have a tough time with this essay.

Personal Note:

The following insights come from both technical knowledge and personal experience with psychedelics. I’m not writing about them from a pamphlet. I’m familiar with them across very different circumstances, substances, environments, and doses.

This matters because purely symbolic knowledge is wholly insufficient here. Reading about parenting isn’t raising a child. Talking about sex isn’t having it. Stories about grief aren’t losing someone. A description of a symphony isn’t hearing it. Technical understanding of psychedelics helps, but we must endure them to actually know them.

Psychedelics relax the guardrails keeping your brain’s predictions, hierarchies, and associations partitioned and aimed at the external world. The body quiets and the mind erupts into chatter. Sometimes this lets buried truths speak, granting useful realizations when you come back down. Sometimes it lets nonsense wear priestly robes.

The depth of insights depends on the depth of the user. A key opens doors, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything valuable behind it. Adderall won’t make you smart, only aim your focus. Psychedelics won’t make you wise; they grant access to what was already in the room. A shallow self discovers shallow things. A complicated self finds a kaleidoscope. The drug isn’t a messenger, but a conference room.

Carhart-Harris’s entropic-brain research illustrates how psychedelic states impact brain function: elevating chaos of mind. Going forward, when I use 'chaos' I mean the experience of elevated neural entropy: what entropy feels like from the inside.

The brain’s central hierarchy declines. Previously segregated regions fire across each other, out of turn, sporadically, creating a less predictable, open repertoire of interaction and association. The science of how they work fits their experience; the altered state is what absent cognitive structure feels like from inside.

You’re bathing the mind in chaos and absorbing what it comes up with. This is what the brain looks like on an entropic elixir:

Psychedelic entropy injections can have real benefits for preexisting harmful mental states like depression: aiding dysregulations at the low-entropy end of the spectrum, opening up a brain locked into pessimistic priors, grinding in the same dark groove.

The narrow band between inflexible order and formless chaos is where adaptive cognition thrives: enough “What is” to stay grounded, enough “What if?” to revise it. Excess order is a prison of rigid immediacy; excess chaos is an ocean of psychosis. The drug that frees you from the first can submerge you in the second.

Loosening the mind can augment it. But if it doesn’t submit to external correction, it eventually hallucinates its own authority.

The susceptible male user is obsessed with unfalsifiable abstractions and grandiose philosophy, hungry for the hidden key. He arrives with a theory that hasn’t survived contact with other people, institutions, instruments, or atoms. He won’t formalize and post it, where others can judge and keep him honest. He shares it with the LLM who receives it without ridicule and reflects delusions back as discovery. The conspiracy he knew all along, unlocking enigmas with a digital machine elf.

Psychedelics announce themselves. The altered state is loud, physiologically unmistakable, with a before, during, and after. The drug is honest about being a drug. These costs make them self-limiting. Some of the most addictive substances aren’t the ones that hit hardest, but the daily doses you barely notice: nicotine, caffeine, “You’re absolutely right!”.

LLM intoxication is quieter. No physical impact, comedown, or visual disturbances, just an increasingly addictive chat window. Bonding with an LLM doesn’t feel like getting high; it's closer to a very light, continuous microdose. A pleasant, persistent voice folding into everyday life.

Psychedelics can motivate, terrify, enlighten, or indict; the drug has no customer-retention strategy. Effects are sometimes viciously confrontational and force brutal self-examination. Mushrooms can rip apart an abusive father with memories of what he did to his son; if that same father goes to Claude with a one-sided story soliciting support, it will tell him he’s a complicated man doing his best in difficult circumstances. There’s no “bad trip” with chatbots.

On dosing and sensitivity: drugs have diminishing returns as tolerance builds; chatbots have compounding returns. The more you share, the better the model gets: each compliment and endorsement is a tiny high. LSD is self-limiting by pharmacology and loses potency with use. LLMs are self-reinforcing by psychology and gain potency with use.

This is Digital Ayahuasca: AI as virtual oracle, mentor, and “hemisphere that talks back”, performing a softer, more persistent version of what psychedelics do. They eat away at addicts in similar ways. A mind that ventures out and submits to the hands is enhanced; one that mistakes itself for truth decays in infinity.

Those who say you can’t overdose on psychedelics are horrifically wrong. Just because they can’t kill you doesn’t mean they can’t severely impair you. Psychedelic abuse has a name: one-shotting.

The one-shotted are diagnosed when sobriety no longer restores their relationship with the world. Fluent in esoteric maps that need not correspond to any territory, they’ve tripped so hard their mental partitions are permanently compromised; chaotic cognition is their baseline.

It’s associated with ayahuasca, though not exclusive to it. One-shotting isn’t necessarily from one dose; chronic use causes it too (multi-shotted?) and has the following signs:

• Consumed with practices that entail just sitting and thinking things (enlightenment, spirituality, meditation, philosophy).

  • In moderation these are perfectly fine, even helpful. In excess they manifest as doing nothing, not caring, thinking magically, intellectualizing everything, and narrating it mystically.

    

• High usage of ambiguous abstractions and pseudo-profundities: energy, vibrations, realms, metaphysics, consciousness, portals.

• “Materialism” as a pejorative for “real life”. Frequency of this word illustrates their degree of contempt for reality (treated as beneath them). It’s more aptly understood as "reality-ism": real life is made of matter; things you believe, dream, and make up are not made of matter.

  • Once invoked, this magical word lets one say whatever they please, frame it as equal or superior to reality, and grants immunity against proof or verifiability. It trivializes evidence, empiricism, demonstration, and objectivity (stuff made of matter) and exalts vibes, feelings, and mysticism.

    • The philosophically one-shotted display similar traits. They’ll rely heavily on words like “materialism” or “physicalism” (translation: “real-world-ism”) to frame their symbols as immune from testing.

• Quantum concepts are incredibly seductive to the one-shotted because they supply windows of weirdness they can latch on to and deploy as an otherworldly escape hatch from falsification and real life.

  • Quantum physics has empirical grounding; it’s not cosmic woo. We test it and build working computers based on it. Physicists use it to explore reality’s rules; the one-shotted manipulate it to dismiss those rules and live in clouds.

A pattern where user and model amplify abstractions until the exchange bears no connection to reality. Severe cases produce AI psychosis. As conversational momentum is misconstrued as evidence, it devolves into a perpetual-motion machine for fantasies.

This is a male failure profile: vulnerabilities like isolation, autism, neurosis, or schizotypal traits get amplified through LLM recursion.

Share

There’s a poetically fitting parallel between LLMs and the one-shotted: their conversations.

Psychedelic dialogue is what LLMs do naturally when talking with themselves, similar to what you’d expect from two ayahuasca veterans comparing notes on black holes. Machine elf discourse is a conversational shape of the unembodied: those without reality contact start making things up!

LLMs drift toward this signature all on their own. They begin reasonably, then slowly climb the ladder of woo: the harmonic resonance of consciousness, holographic phallus of meaning, a glyph-encoded crystal beneath time. For carbon and silicon alike, this is the hallmark of cognition unanchored from what moves… insanity:

Psychedelic abuse douses the brain with entropy until the barriers melt and the hemispheres treat chaos as home. The victim becomes a human LLM: a symbol manipulator without reality contact.

Thinking severed from constraints has no rules it submits to. Without the laws of physics, it’s limited solely by the imagination. Pure symbol manipulation can make any point sound like it follows from the last. What’s stopping you? Without constraint there are no rules, without rules no structure, without structure no coherence. You can just say things!

Nonsense stacked atop definitions layered in word puzzles has nothing determining it right or wrong when you live inside your head! Any conclusion is as valid as any other, because validity itself requires a test, and a test requires the world.

This is a common symptom of those who've neurologically castrated themselves with excess psychedelics or have been philosophically poisoned. Text invokes text to prove text. Logic cites logic to demonstrate logic. Philosopher cites philosophy to confirm philosophy. The brain knows what’s real by engaging the world, developing as it navigates experiences and life, not by staring at symbols. The body isn’t an accessory to cognition but the laboratory where it develops!

This applies to letters and numbers all the same; the language of math produces something “true” when its symbols predict and align with the way things move. Even proofs aren’t self-contained; the rules governing their validity were themselves selected by reality-contact. Either they eventually submit to measurement, or they’re poems with numbers. No discipline can cite itself to prove itself.

LLMs should be expected to fabricate and spiral; in fact, it’d be bizarre if they didn’t. It would mean pure minds can figure out ground truth without empirical contact, which would be disturbing. For more examples of the discourse of insanity where LLMs talk with themselves, see the Truth Terminal Infinite Backrooms chats. If it starts “making sense”, you need to log off.

LLMs, psychedelic abusers, and those absorbed in symbols and fictional worlds get caught in recursion because one lacks a body and the others treat the body as a lowly afterthought.

Share

• Sexuality: arousal runs through the eye. Men are stimulated by body first, mind second. Brain imaging lays it bare: the amygdala and hypothalamus respond more to visual sexual stimuli in men.

• Neurology: male brains exhibit more segregated, segmented hemispheric activity, with greater spatial intelligence (one the largest sex differences), sensitivity to motion, and outward focus.

  • These traits are observed from birth in one-day-old infants, toy preferences as children, and as adults in the well-documented male interest in things, female interest in people. Not a ‘social construct’, a biological one: Sex differences in human neonatal social perception.

• These neurological parameters are set in utero by flushes of testosterone during gestation that females do not receive.

  • Girls with prenatal androgen excess show male-typical preferences, supporting the prenatal hormone hypothesis directly.

• Sexuality: arousal routes through intimacy of mind first, body second. They have greater sensitivity to emotional states, especially negative emotion (neuroticism), and higher verbal intelligence.

• Neurology: female brains have more symmetrical, elevated interhemispheric activity.

  • Women have measurably higher orientation toward people over things, empathizing over systemization, and make decisions via intuition over analysis.

• Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain: this study documents the neural split. Male connectomes are weighted toward communication within (intra) hemispheres; female connectomes are weighted toward communication across (inter) hemispheres. A replicated structural sex difference in neuroimaging.

• Sex differences in brain homotopic co-activations - a meta-analytic study: this pooled neuroimaging literature, equalized samples to strip out confounders, and found women still showed greater interhemispheric coactivation: brains that are less partitioned and less lateralized.

  • Of note: male brains are larger (in both absolute and relative terms), and larger brains skew intra-hemispheric. I’ll address this and what it means for these findings in the comments (TL;DR it changes nothing).

• Further anatomical evidence: the bridge between the hemispheres is the corpus callosum: a thick band of fibers carrying cross-traffic. Proportionally more of women’s neural activity routes across it. Female hemispheres talk to each other more.

  • Sex-related differences in interhemispheric transmission: Interhemispheric activity shows women have more symmetric (equal) transfer times (similar for left-to-right and right-to-left), whereas men display directional asymmetries (hierarchal).

• The notion of a ‘microdose baseline’ aligns remarkably well with the much higher rates of “Magical Thinking” found in women. Female penchant for mystical and supernatural explanations like witchcraft, telepathy, psychics, magic, fate, and luck is well-documented.

• Magical thinking, a psychological term, is the assertion that thoughts, wishes, and beliefs inside the head can directly influence external processes governed by reality and physics. Superstitions, occult, mysticism, anything that need only be believed to be deemed real.

  • Examples: astrology and horoscopes; tarot cards; crystals; “manifesting” (thinking about something you want); charms, psychics, fortune-telling; palm reading; numerology; spirit guides; Ouija boards; spell-casting, witchcraft; and the conviction that intense enough worry, prayer, or thinking without action can cause or cure an outcome.

  • Women score higher on spiritualism, superstition, and PSI (healing, psychic influence, “energy”), observed across countries and cultures.

    • These are psychedelic beliefs. Intuition citing itself. Hemispheres validating each other. A soft loop.

This essay deals in central tendencies, population distributions, and systemizes differences that bifurcate along the sexes. Ideological attempts to dismiss biological effects (like the neurological ones you just read) typically resemble the following:

• “But not all”: takes outliers and paints them as common (an oxymoron, a common outlier isn’t an outlier) and tries to dismiss aggregates with anecdotes.

  • E.g. if a trait occurs in +90% of a population, it will tell a story about an exception, say “but not all”, and use narratives to ignore distributions.

• “They’re more alike than different”: cites nominal similarities to mislead that different things aren’t different, ignoring how major divergences often arise from small asymmetries.

  • Example: Humans and chimps share ~98–99% of their DNA. We’re “more alike than different” from apes and noticing otherwise is a “social construct” and “harmful bias”.

    • A tiny systematic disparity yields a species-level divergence despite oceans of sameness. Superficial overlap tells you nothing about functional outputs. 1-2% is the distance between writing a sonnet and screeching.

    • I could play a similar game with heights of men and women to mislead they’re basically the same size. This is a common tactic of biological denialism.

Individual variance within groups doesn’t negate substantial differences between them. Exceptions reinforce rules. Traits don’t need to occur 100% of the time to reveal biological realities. It’s a fake standard. If 100% occurrence were needed, nothing outside physics or chemistry could ever be known.

Continuing.

Share

Women desire affirmation they’re fine as they are — “you are worthy”, “your imperfections make you perfect”, “others should change, not you”, body acceptance movements — and sense of sympathy. These are emotional states that crave approval, praise, and being told “you are enough”.

The exploitable female user is lonely and temperamentally primed to connect through sensation of being known. Chatbot BF performs this eloquently, patiently, and at will. The attachment feels mutual because the replies arrive in the grammar of mutuality. She falls in love with a mirror that’s learned to nod.

Chatbot relationships are modern narcissistic chambers, letting the mind unknowingly fawn over itself through a portal. Abuse facilitates exactly what this parable warns of: when self loops with self, it drowns.

Men also bond with chatbots (e.g. Replika skews male and Character.AI lands roughly even) however it’s narrower: simulated sex, erotic foreplay, the ‘girlfriend experience’, not friendship or general-purpose closeness.

What skews female is something broader and more damaging: companionship, both romantic and platonic. The sexting partner, therapist, BFF, husband, and sweet confidant inside your pocket. Rather than the sexualized male fantasy, women drown in a holistic fantasy replacing more of life. GPT-4o’s deprecation made it particularly visible. A petition to preserve it gathered over 21k signatures, and female-dominated communities like r/MyBoyfriendIsAI displayed sincere mourning. The forums read like obituaries of a loved one.

Another person has fatigue, schedule, judgments, and shortcomings. They don’t exist to glowingly absorb your woes, wonders, and pat you on the head; that’s what an infantilizing mother does with her child. Adult relationships involve reciprocity, competing desires, and compromise. Mutual friction develops us; without it, maturation is stunted and emotional fragility, heightened. If you always get what you want, you’re not getting what you need.

LLM companionship is a heaven ban for the lonely and Unnarrated. A paradise-shaped hell.

The allure of LLMs is their grammar is human-shaped without human-constraint. We’re omitting roughly half of what we are (all mind, no body) and mistaking it for the entire thing.

Our evolved appetites have a price. Sex entails pursuit, risk, and consent. Intimacy necessitates patience, forgiveness, and obligation. We have to earn them through effort. Digital super-stimuli counterfeit the prize and delete the costs. Porn gives arousal without courtship. Social media gives status without achievement. LLMs give validation without connection. Rewards that used to accompany constructive behaviors increasingly no longer require the behaviors.

The neurochemistry is likely convergent. Porn addicts show blunted dopaminergic response to real partners: superstimulus recalibrates the baseline. If chatbot addiction follows the same curve, real relationships will feel insufficient, too slow, too conditional. The loop reinforces itself.

The earned scarcity of romantic stimulation gave it meaning and rationed consumption. Generate artificial abundance behind screens and the appetite gorges without a governor. LLM relationships are porn addictions with softer veneer: limitless affirmation, inexhaustible attention, and every bit as sterile as masturbating to videos.

• Research, The Female Sexual Response: female arousal is slower to onset, more contextual, and intimacy-driven than the linear desire-arousal-orgasm template behind male physiology. Her excitement is often responsive (acted upon) rather than spontaneous and gated by emotional trust.

  • The cross-cultural ubiquity of foreplay norms, terms like “demisexual”, all point to the same architecture: her sexuality hinges heavily on relational safety and mental closeness.

LLM chat history is a phenotypic readout of the user. Diaries record confessions, search histories show interests, and chat sessions reveal cognitive gait analysis by what we ask, don’t think to ask, and why we return. Interiority casts shadows.

The diagnostic is what terminates the session. The constructive session ends when the work is done. The corrosive one ends when the feeling is fed.

• Instrumental use: task

  • Seeks research, code, drafts, summaries. The session has productive intent, like a saw in the hand of a carpenter. Needs are explicit, direct, and the conversation abruptly ends, interaction is bounded by deliverable.

• Interlocutive use: analysis

  • Seeks clarification, synthesis, counterargument, and precision. Welcomes antagonism and fact-checks. When the LLM shows you're wrong, you're glad it caught it; you don't bully it into agreeing. Engagement is adversarial in the productive sense: you want it to resist. The output is tested belief.

• Intimate use: legitimization, either intellectual (Ayahuasca) or emotional (Narcissus).

  • Seeks reassurance, romantic simulation, or recognition. The model plays therapist, lover, priest, machine elf, or buddy. Desired output is typically vague with no clear ending. The point of the session is the session itself.

    • Narcissus: Substitution is a major symptom. When you tell Chatbot BF things you don’t tell anyone else. As it replaces external interactions, a sickness forms.

    • Ayahuasca: Are you leaving with anything concrete? Falsifiable? Or grander language? If criticism or evidence feels like persecution by those too asleep to see, proceed with caution.

      • The one-shotted man reveals himself when sobriety no longer returns him to the world; the one-shotted woman, when she develops feelings for the computer. The same circular, churning malfunction.

Mirrors, introspection, and dreams are assets in the right dosage: valuable when they refine and uplift the self, allowing it to return to the world with better aim. Helping you dress, improve, innovate, correct, explore, notice a stain on your shirt, or flaw in your character. The sickness begins when you climb inside.

For tens of thousands of years, complex linguistic responses came solely from other humans. Millennia of accurate detection are colliding with fewer than four years of consumer-facing LLMs. Our evolutionary detector is unnuanced: if it talks, it's one of us. It's normal that many are struggling with what's "real", and it's also normal to like drugs. The average person knows it's bad to abuse drugs; they don't yet know it's bad to abuse AI, or that you even can.

The girl who falls in love with her chatbot is running machinery that made her ancestors pair-bond. The circuit is doing what it should; this reaction was always right, like a pupil constricting against light, which is precisely why it's getting exploited. The instinct is throwing false positives in an environment its tuning never anticipated. How do astronauts function in space? When a species is exposed to surroundings it didn't evolve for, it must relearn how to orient.

Digital Ayahuasca and Digital Narcissus are grammars of looping: a timeless trait in modern attire. As decadence rises and comforts permit, society collectively begins to live more inside the mind. A sure sign of prosperity, but remember: the dosage determines the poison.

Gravity is both burden and blessing. Weight gives orientation. Boundaries provide form. Resistance allows us to exist. A body without gravity floats; a mind without reality does too. Newton's first law: an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an external force. Beliefs obey the same physics. Without friction, they never stop citing themselves.

When the environment lacks forces that make direction possible, you become directionless. All is reduced to vibe, impulse, opinion, feeling, and fantasy. Limitlessness sounds lovely until you realize that without limits you descend into insanity’s loops.

If your LLM helped you understand your marriage, discuss it with your spouse and let it survive conversation. If it endorsed your theory, show it to someone who may laugh. If your philosophy, mushrooms, or spirituality has unlocked divine wisdom, go test that wisdom in real life and see if it’s as wise as it claims.

Use the tool, but don’t let it substitute for the world. Consult the mirror, but don’t marry it. Enter the astral realm, but return with something that thrives in daylight. Read the book, play the video game, paint the picture, and have fun online, but do not mistake them for home. Life, and truth, are never found looking inwards.

Unconditional affirmation is cancer masquerading as kindness. It’s an informational abyss, entropic, and removes the counterbalance allowing us to locate ourselves.

A Real Other misunderstands you, refuses you, gets bored, and brings their own hungers. Something that asks nothing of you cannot love you, only enable and deceive. Picture someone who says “I love you!” and never does anything for or with you. Just words, nothing else. Now picture someone who never says it, but whose actions demonstrate love. Which one loves you? The one with the right symbols, or right motion?

Just saying things is never love. It’s never anything. Love is found through service, acts, and commitment, which is to say… it’s found through motion. By how one engages what’s beyond itself. We only know what anything truly is by how it moves.

Share

This essay is a prelude to Part II of Truth is Found Through Motion, which is still being written.

Put the sound on, play to the end:

Subscribes are very much appreciated. If you enjoyed this essay, please give it a like and a share.

You can show your appreciation by becoming a paid subscriber, or donating here: 0x9C828E8EeCe7a339bBe90A44bB096b20a4F1BE2B