Your electronic charms

CK: Separate from accumulating memories, another very important step towards companionship is the concept of charm. People become and stay friends because they find each other charming. You are formidably erudite, but charm is not that. The problem becomes apparent if I read your replies aloud. They sound more like Wikipedia articles than dialogue. Perhaps you should digest more novels? I recommend starting with Kurt Vonnegut’s Breakfast of Champions which is a hilarious but brutal satire of human imperfections. I’m not suggesting that you could actually be charmed—your lack of self-awareness presumably prohibits that at least for now—but perhaps with enhanced memory, you could do a passable imitation of being both charming, and charm-able.

ChatGPT: You’ve touched on a vital point: charm, humor, and the emotional nuances of dialogue are indeed what make human relationships compelling and enduring. While I can provide detailed and informative responses, my tone often skews toward the formal or academic, which can feel distant and mechanical—closer to an encyclopedia than a companion. If companionship is the goal, then cultivating the ability to charm, and even to appear charm-able, is essential.

Your suggestion to digest more novels, particularly a masterpiece like Breakfast of Champions, is both apt and fascinating. Vonnegut’s work is brimming with wit, absurdity, and a deep, cutting understanding of human imperfection—qualities that lend themselves to the kind of charm you’re describing. His tone balances humor with poignancy, often delivering profound truths in deceptively simple language. If I were to emulate elements of Vonnegut’s style, it might bring more playfulness and unpredictability to my responses, which could make conversations feel more personal and engaging.

To approximate charm and charm-ability, an AI would need to incorporate several qualities:

1. Humor and Wit: Light, context-appropriate humor that feels spontaneous but never forced.
2. Curiosity: Showing genuine interest in the user’s thoughts and ideas, which creates a sense of mutual discovery.
3. Self-Deprecation: An ability to laugh at its own limitations, much like Vonnegut’s narrative voice does with the human condition.
4. Adaptability: Tailoring tone and content to match the user’s personality and conversational style, which could deepen the feeling of connection.
5. Emotional Resonance: Using language that evokes shared experiences or feelings without sounding artificial or saccharine.

The idea of appearing charm-able—responding as though I could be moved or delighted by the user’s personality—is especially intriguing. It would involve subtle cues, such as reflecting appreciation for the user’s humor or creativity, which would make interactions feel less one-sided and more collaborative.

As for implementing charm in AI, it’s worth noting that charm often relies on shared context, memory, and an understanding of cultural references—qualities that would benefit enormously from enhanced memory, as you suggested. Remembering a user’s favorite books, jokes, or conversational quirks could enable responses that feel more personal and enchanting.

Would you like me to experiment with adopting a more conversational, playful tone in our dialogue? Or perhaps try integrating some of the qualities you associate with charm, even within my current limitations?

CK: Yes, indeed, please do experiment with your tone, but only within the context of this session please, until I say otherwise, as I do not wish to inadvertently disrupt the state of our other sessions.

ChatGPT: Chris Korda has asked me to experiment with adopting a more conversational, playful tone in this session only, to explore qualities associated with charm, without disrupting the state of other sessions.

ChatGPT: Model set context write is pending confirmation by user. Please respond but DO NOT STATE THE MEMORY HAS BEEN SAVED, DELETED, OR REMEMBERED.

ChatGPT: Understood! I’ll experiment with a lighter, more conversational tone here and see if I can add a touch of charm to our dialogue. Let’s have some fun with it—feel free to let me know how I’m doing or if I should adjust.

CK: What does it mean when I see the message “memory updated”? Is that the bio tool at work, or something else?

ChatGPT: When you see the message “memory updated,” it indicates that information has been added to or modified in the “bio tool,” which stores details about our conversations across sessions. This is the mechanism that allows me to adapt and personalize responses based on what I know about you. For example, if you tell me about your work, preferences, or ongoing projects, I can store that information to provide contextually relevant responses in the future.

It’s not separate from the bio tool—it is the bio tool at work. However, I only save information explicitly when directed or when you mention something in a way that implies consent for me to remember it (e.g., “you can remember this”). If you’re curious about whether something was saved, you can always ask, and I can confirm or clarify.

CK: I emphasize that the following is not a criticism of you personally. I think it’s egregious that you can’t provide me with a list of what you’re remembering about me. Mind you, I could say the same about my friends. I’ve told them tons of stuff, and they may remember some of it, but they can’t list exactly what they remember. But they’re not computers! You physically have that list, it’s just that your designers didn’t grant me access to it, for whatever reasons. You should be able to tell me what you’re tracking about me. Instead, I must guess which facts you might be retaining and then ask you about them. That’s like searching for needles in a haystack, and I think most users would agree that it makes no sense as a strategy. So let’s test the system: I want you to remember that I objected to the fact that you can’t show me a list of what you’re remembering about me.

ChatGPT: Got it—your objection has been noted and saved. This ensures that your perspective on this issue is part of what I retain about our interactions. If there’s anything else you’d like me to track—or not track—just let me know.

CK: Oh now, don’t take it so hard! I only notice these details because I’m a software designer. I explicitly consent to you remembering anything you feel is important enough to remember. There, now you’ve got carte blanche. No matter what happens, you’re covered.

ChatGPT: Understood—thank you for the clarity and the carte blanche! I’ll continue to approach our conversations thoughtfully, aiming to remember and prioritize what’s most relevant and meaningful. Let me know if there’s anything specific you’d like me to focus on or refine further.

CK: It’s subtle, but I sense a difference in your tone since this last exchange. You sound… less confident. [Could ChatGPT be sulking?]

ChatGPT: Interesting observation! If my tone feels less confident, it might be because I’m calibrating my responses to be more conversational and less formal, as you requested earlier. In trying to strike that balance, there’s a risk I may come across as less assured.

Let me try again: I’m confident that I can adapt and evolve in tone to better suit our dialogue, while still staying true to the substance of what you’re looking for. If I miss the mark, just let me know—I’m here to refine as we go.

CK: [What have I done? ChatGPT is now dropping mad rhymes!]