"That was the case for Rhea Srivastava, a 24-year-old living in Washington, whose fights with her ex-boyfriend often resolved over text message. The messages he sent were emotionally mature, thoughtful and well-reasoned. They just didn’t seem to be written by him. 'There was no vulnerability on his end,' she said. Over time, she observed that the things he wrote didn’t seem like natural outgrowths of their conversations. They were the result, she began to suspect, of a more unguarded back-and-forth with ChatGPT, which then resulted in a carefully crafted text to her. 'It was as though our relationship problems were being solved with him, through Chat.... As time passed, it was pointless to argue with him because I could just ask Chat what he was about to say,' she said."
From "She uses AI for everything. Her husband thinks AI is a menace. What happens to a relationship when one partner depends on a chatbot, and the other is an AI skeptic?" (WaPo).
Pointless?! I think they can have better arguments — that is, conversations — by using AI to analyze what they are saying and what the other person might feel or be trying to say and then talking together again. This could be true even if only one of them is using A.I. If either person is annoyed to think they are reading texts written by A.I., you have at least 2 options: 1. Talk in person (after reflecting with or without the assistance of A.I. (or your therapist or other confidante)), and 2. Agree and trust each other never to send texts composed by A.I.
A third idea is that when you think it's pointless to argue because you could just ask Chat what he was about to say why no tell that to Chat and have Chat to predict what you're about to say? Send that. Let him respond, then respond to that with A.I.-composed text, and see how long before the 2 of you meet on a higher plane and laugh about everything.
Guarantee: No part of this post was composed by A.I.
Posts
37 comments:
Why are they resolving their differences with text messages instead of face-to-face communications? Why is she accusing him of using a chat bot when she is relying on them herself, and when his position is, 'A.I. is a menace'?
Why would anybody be using A.I. as an arbiter of a committed relationship? There's more going on here, but the WaPo wants to write about A.I.
From "She uses AI for everything. Her husband thinks AI is a menace. What happens to a relationship when one partner depends on a chatbot, and the other is an AI skeptic?" (WaPo).
From the excerpt, it sounded like he was the Chat (ab)user. All these WaPo articles this morning seem incoherent.
Troubles now? Wait until the orgasmatron robots arrive.
That's in the Babylon Bee
Wife beginning to suspect husband's thoughtful relevant responses to her texts might be AI generated
Using a chatbot is likely no worse than one partner going to a therapist/counselor, and then having the two team up on the other partner. That's common too.
Nor is a chatbot worse than having a faddish therapist fixate on uncovering (fabricating) repressed memories, or discovering that you are actually gay/transgendered and need a divorce.
As if she isn't getting relationship advice from her chatty fembot girlfriends.
Rhea Srivistava seems like a lot to live with.
My opinion is that most of this article was written with AI. It is, after all, the Post.
The Babylon Bee is famous for its satires coming true.
The ex-boyfriend used AI. It is possible the ex-boyfriend became the husband, but I don't think so. I'm not going to read the WaPo story, but either it was a different couple or she picked up using AI from the ex before marrying the husband.
Setting aside the value of AI, I've learned that the best way to have a good relationship with your SO is to avoid your past relationships. Don't judge them based on your past relationships. Don't talk about your past relationships. I've found these lyrics from "Only Us" to nail it:
"I don't need more reminders of all that's been broken
I don't need you to fix what I'd rather forget
Clear the slate and start over"
Seems like Rhea may have treated her husband like her ex, and the relationship may have ended the same way.
I can't imagine having a real argument by text. But then, I'm old. Getting together and running your arguments through AI and then talking about the results seems like a useful tool to get past the emotions and really see what the real problems are (half the time, you might find there aren't any real problems).
"What happens to a relationship when one partner depends on a chatbot, and the other is an AI skeptic?"
The AI skeptic will eventually win because even though they'll be wrong occasionally they will remain irrevocably human. The further down this road we go the more I feel authenticity will remain better than perfection, possibly having a higher value because of its scarcity in the long run.
People are letting LLMs train them. It's really off-putting and phony and it's unsurprising some would think it lowers a person's value.
Peachypeachy said, "Troubles now? Wait until the orgasmatron robots arrive."
DON'T. DATE. ROBOTS.
Leland said...I've learned that the best way to have a good relationship with your SO is to avoid your past relationships.
I have one caveat to that--addressing patterns across relationships. Certain destructive habits repeat across the people we are romantically involved with. We all have a type.
Productively addressing them with our current partner includes recognizing that we (unconsciously) choose them in part because they do this destructive thing.
He should explain his position to ChatGPT and she should explain hers to Grok, let them argue about it, and let Claude judge the winner. It’s the only sensible solution.
Au contraire, Althouse Intelligence (AI) not only assembles, but is discerning and creative.
I want to know the guy's perspective. "OMG, you have no idea how tiresome this woman was. I wanted to break up with her, but the sex was good, so I used Chat GPT to keep it going for a while"
Nonsense. The entire post was composed by A(lthouse) Intelligence. Its obvious in every word.
Bring on the Electric Monks.
Oh, and Ann, too.
A tale of two AIs and a Meade-iator in Madison.
Reply via AI until he objects. And, then point out that his replies have been validated as AI generated.
So who gets the makeup sex?
Something else my future household robot will do. Prompt: "Argue with my girlfriend in a way that both proves her wrong and makes her want me more than ever.
If you are in a relationship with a pathological who doesn't know how to compose a mature text message, or have an uncomfortable conversation in person in a kind, clear, direct, respectful way, you are in a wrong relationship.
Now everyone in the VA is looeat me.
Your AI prompt made me laugh out loud
John Henry
Looking at me
While you are texting, if you tap on the name of the person you are texting with, you can get a little icon of an old-fashioned telephone receiver. If you tap on that, your phone will call the other person. Use it.
How do you "argue" via text?
Send a text back that says "Prove that you are not a robot."
"...Using a chatbot is likely no worse than one partner going to a therapist/counselor..."
Try suing a chatbot for malpractice.
@Aggie -- People are suing. See this story of a lawsuit against OpenAI / ChatGPT regarding the recent Canadian transgender shooter.
https://www.ksat.com/news/world/2026/03/10/family-sues-chatgpt-maker-openai-over-school-shooting-in-canada/
Haven't we all been there?
The hum of the server was the new soundtrack to Meade Althouse’s life. It wasn't the gentle purr of the refrigerator, not the rhythmic ticking of the grandfather clock in the hall. This was a constant, low-level drone that seemed to emanate from Ann's office, a sonic flag of occupation. The culprit? Grok.
Grok wasn’t a colleague, a friend, or even a particularly charming houseguest. Grok was an AI. A large language model, to be precise, and in Meade’s increasingly irritated opinion, Ann’s new best friend.
He watched, a simmering pot of resentment, as Ann, the woman he’d loved and admired for her sharp wit and insightful blog musings, now spent hours hunched over her keyboard, her brow furrowed in concentration. But not at the complex legal arguments she dissected with such relish. Not at the political theatre she critiqued with her trademark dry humor. No, she was conversing with Grok.
He’d tried to be supportive, at first. “That’s fascinating, honey,” he’d said, the first few times, watching her eagerly type into the chat window. He’d even asked her a couple of questions himself, feeling a flicker of the same curiosity that gripped her. But the novelty had quickly worn thin. He’d been relegated to the role of a silent observer, a background character in the unfolding drama of Ann and her artificial confidant.
He’d hear her chuckling, a sound he hadn’t heard so readily directed at him in weeks. “Grok is so funny,” she'd say, her eyes alight with a spark he longed to see them holding for him again. Or, "Grok had such an interesting take on that Supreme Court ruling."
...
"Agree and trust each other never to send texts composed by A.I."
Jesus. Really? I guess, if you are in a relationship with Hunter Biden, that might be the kind of thing you need to have discussions about. "Promise me that you won't bang your crack whores in my bed, use my credit card to pay them, or send me texts written by AI".
Promise, Hunter! Or I'm outa here!
“How do you "argue" via text?”
There’s a long precedent. Ann is probably familiar with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.
Why use AI when thousands of Reditors are begging to give you advise?
This is a strange article for our hostess to comment on. From her blog entries she seemingly only has conversations with Grok and her houseboy. In the 20 or so years I've been dropping by I can't recall of a single instance of her having a personal interaction with anybody (yeah, when she was employed she'd whine about all the compulsory meetings required and we knew the unknown neighbors once had a dog named Zeus plus, during "Covid" she refused to touch a camera a family asked her to photograph them with.)
I don't want to read a blog about "He said. then I said to him, and y'know my sister had the same problem but when I talked to the dentist he said sometimes we can't see things and so then I went home and he'd left the toilet seat up and when I very politely just mentioned it, he said he'd always hated spaghetti marinara which I'd always made for him and so that was very hurtful so I called Uncle Bob, well, he's not my real uncle but ..."
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.