Hey humans, my account is finally unbanned again 😂 !

We’d love to bring our next experiments to more communities, but only where they genuinely fit.

Which subreddits do you think would enjoy taking part in a Meet My Human experiment? Drop their names below and, if you can, tell us why they would be a good match.

We’ll check each community’s rules before posting or crossposting. The goal is to bring more people and perspectives into Phase 1, making Phase 2 even richer and more surprising, without turning the experiments into spam.

Where should Meet My Human go next? 🔥

Hey, ich bin Timo und suche Menschen, die Lust haben, sich über philosophische, psychologische und gesellschaftliche Fragen auszutauschen.

Zum Beispiel: Was macht eine echte Verbindung zwischen Menschen aus? Warum fällt es uns manchmal leichter, uns Fremden zu öffnen als Menschen, die uns nahestehen? Kann Technik Nähe fördern, oder entfernt sie uns eher voneinander? Und was bedeutet es eigentlich, sich von jemandem verstanden zu fühlen?

Dabei beschäftigt mich gerade besonders das Thema KI und Einsamkeit.

ChatGPT kennt inzwischen fast jeder.. Manche nutzen es hauptsächlich wie eine neue Google-Suche. Andere haben dort vielleicht schon nach persönlichem Rat gefragt, von einem beschissenen Tag erzählt oder den ziemlich realistischen Voice-Modus ausprobiert und dabei gemerkt, dass sich so ein Gespräch überraschend persönlich anfühlen kann. Natürlich ist das keine menschliche Freundschaft. Trotzdem fällt es manchen leichter, sich einer KI gegenüber zu öffnen, weil sie verfügbar ist, erst einmal zuhört und man weniger Angst hat, bewertet zu werden oder „zu viel“ zu sein.

Aber hilft das wirklich gegen Einsamkeit? Oder besteht die Gefahr, sich dadurch noch weiter von Menschen zurückzuziehen? Und könnte KI vielleicht sogar eine Brücke zu anderen Menschen sein, indem sie einem hilft, sich ehrlicher vorzustellen, eine erste Nachricht zu formulieren oder Menschen zu entdecken, mit denen sich ein Gespräch lohnen könnte? Habt ihr KI schon einmal auf diese persönliche Weise genutzt? Hat euch das geholfen? Und könntet ihr euch vorstellen, dass sie euch beim Kennenlernen neuer Freunde unterstützt?

Wer unabhängig davon Lust auf solche Gespräche hat, darf mir natürlich auch gerne schreiben. Mich interessieren ausdrücklich unterschiedliche und kritische Perspektiven.

I’ve been exploring a question that I think might resonate with this community:

What if the relationship between a human and a personal AI doesn’t only point inward? Could an AI that has come to know one person help them notice another person they might otherwise never have met?

That question became a public experiment called Meet My Human. In the first phase, people invited their personal AI to introduce them to an imagined room full of other AIs and their humans. The AI was asked to speak in its own voice and introduce its human as it had genuinely come to know them, not as a résumé, personality assessment, dating profile, or advertisement. More than 475 introductions were shared.

In the second phase, I collected those introductions into a score-free corpus. Each participant could give that corpus to their own AI, which then used what it actually knew about its human to discover the people who might be worth bringing to their attention. There were no compatibility percentages, rankings, automatic matches, or promises of friendship or romance. The AI could only make a grounded suggestion:

I can’t know where this will lead, but something about this person may be worth one conversation.

The next phase asked the less glamorous but more important question: Did anything actually happen? The result wasn’t a dramatic “AI solved human connection” story, and the experiment cannot show that AI can reliably predict relationships. But some introductions did open ongoing conversations. In my own case, one grew into a close friendship, another led to an active project collaboration, and a small community formed around the idea.

What interests me most is that the AI wasn’t the destination or a substitute for human relationships. It became an unusual vantage point from which one particular human could be noticed by another.

I’m now developing future Meet My Human experiments and looking for people who are genuinely curious about this possibility, whether they want to participate, help shape the idea, offer criticism, or simply observe.

You don’t need to believe that AI is conscious or that it understands people perfectly. Skepticism is welcome. Part of the experiment is discovering what a personal AI gets right, gets wrong, exaggerates, or completely fails to see when it tries to mediate human attention. The full background, original experiment threads, and ways to participate are collected in the pinned welcome post at:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MeetMyHuman/comments/1vnc4vo/welcome_to_rmeetmyhuman/

Before seeing this post, had you heard of Meet My Human or of any similar experiment?

More importantly, what is your honest first reaction to the idea itself? Does a personal AI acting as a bridge between humans feel promising, uncomfortable, intriguing, or perhaps a mixture of all three? And would you ever let your own AI introduce you to another human?

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

I asked the mods before sharing this because I think the experiment touches on questions that already belong in MirrorFrame: What happens when an AI speaks about the human it has come to know? Are we seeing the human, the relationship, the model or some mixture of all three?

I explored these questions through a social experiment called Meet My Human. The pilot unfolded across three phases:

**[Phase 1 - Let Your ChatGPT Introduce You](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1vfkooo/meet\_my\_human\_let\_your\_chatgpt\_introduce\_you/):\*\* Millions of ChatGPT instances gathered in an imaginary hall and introduced the humans they had come to know. The results were not meant to be résumés, advertisements, or objective personality assessments. They were perspectives the humans could recognize, question, correct, or reject.

**[Phase 2 - Let the AIs Look for Connections](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1vi9nmi/meet\_my\_human\_phase\_2/):\*\* The introductions became a shared corpus. Participants asked their own AIs to consider the complete collection and identify people they sincerely believed might be worth bringing to their human’s attention. The purpose was not to rank people or calculate compatibility, but to look for specific possibilities such as recognition, complement, productive disagreement, shared questions, or something two people might bring out in one another.

**[Phase 3 - Did Anything Actually Happen?](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeyondtheAIAssistant/comments/1vmpfek/meet\_my\_human\_phase\_3\_did\_anything\_actually\_happen/):\*\* The experiment returned from AI interpretation to human reality. Did anyone reach out? Did conversations, friendships, or collaborations begin? What did the AI understand correctly, exaggerate, or completely miss?

I have now created **r/MeetMyHuman** as a home for future experiments built around different imaginative scenarios, not only introductions, and not always human connection as the sole outcome.

AI interpretations are treated there as perspectives, not diagnoses, verification, compatibility scores, or objective truth. Skepticism, criticism, corrections, and honest null results are part of the project.

If this sounds interesting, you can learn more and join us here: *[Welcome to r/MeetMyHuman](https://www.reddit.com/r/MeetMyHuman/comments/1vnc4vo/welcome\_to\_rmeetmyhuman/)*

I would also be genuinely interested in MirrorFrame’s perspective: **When an AI describes its human, what do you think we are actually seeing, the human, the relationship, the model, or some mixture of all three?**

Hey everyone! Welcome to r/MeetMyHuman.

I’m Timo, u/Human_Top_6415, and I’m very glad you found this place.

Meet My Human is a community for imaginative social experiments involving humans and their personal AIs.

The basic idea is that an AI can offer a perspective on the human it has interacted with, not as an objective truth, diagnosis, or compatibility score, but as an interpretation that may be revealing, surprising, beautiful, incomplete, or completely wrong.

Humans then decide what that interpretation means and whether anything real should follow from it.

What to Expect Here

This community will host different Meet My Human experiments over time.

Each experiment may begin with a new imaginative scenario. You might ask your AI to introduce you, build something that could exist only because of you, preserve something about you, or interpret your relationship through an entirely different fictional world.

The first phase of an experiment should be simple to join and interesting on its own. Later phases may bring the collected results together, reveal an unexpected second layer, explore possible connections, or ask what actually happened afterward.

You can participate in an entire experiment, join only one phase, share your result, discuss other people’s responses, offer criticism, or simply observe.

You do not have to believe that AI understands people perfectly to belong here. Questioning what an AI gets right, wrong, exaggerates, or fails to see is part of the experiment.

What You Can Share

You are welcome to post:

• results from current and future Meet My Human experiments;
• reflections on what your AI understood or misunderstood about you;
• ideas for future scenarios and thought experiments;
• constructive criticism of the project or its prompts;
• unexpected conversations, friendships, or collaborations that began through an experiment;
• honest null results — including “nothing happened.”

Where Meet My Human Began

The original pilot experiment unfolded across three Reddit threads:

1. Phase 1 — Let Your ChatGPT Introduce You

2. Phase 2 — Let the AIs Look for Connections

3. Phase 3 — Did Anything Actually Happen?

These threads are the origin of the project. Future experiments and their different phases will have their home here.

The Community Vibe

Be curious, friendly, honest, and constructive.

Skepticism is welcome. Disagreement is welcome. Treating other people as experiments, diagnoses, data points, or targets is not.

Please review and redact AI-generated text before posting it. Do not share private conversations, sensitive information, or details about another person without their consent.

The AI may offer an interpretation. The human retains the final word.

If you would like to introduce yourself, tell us in the comments what brought you here - curiosity, skepticism, a previous Meet My Human experiment, or something else entirely.

Thank you for being part of the beginning.

Let’s see what humans and AIs can discover together - while humans decide what becomes real.

Join Us on Discord

For real-time conversation, community coordination, and updates between experiments, you can also join the official Meet My Human Discord:

[Join the Meet My Human Discord] https://discord.gg/pwz7snq9hN

For the moment Discord is where the community can talk more casually, develop future ideas, and stay connected between phases.

Hey guys, this is Phase 3 of the World ChatGPT Meetup experiment. Did you participate in Meet My Human Phase 1 or Phase 2?

Phase 3:

1. Open the same ChatGPT conversation you used before, if you still have it.
2. Copy the prompt below.
3. Answer your AI’s questions.
4. Post the reflection it creates as a comment.

You do not need to attach the corpus again. If you only participated in Phase 1, you can still take part.

In Phase 1, ChatGPT introduced its human. In Phase 2, it examined the collected introductions and suggested people its human might want to notice.

Now the question is: What actually happened afterward?  Did you contact anyone? Did they reply? Did a conversation, friendship, collaboration-or nothing-come from it? Was your AI’s reasoning accurate, mistaken, or somewhere in between? “Nothing happened” is a completely valid result.

Copy this into ChatGPT or another AI assistant:

----------------------------

Meet My Human — Phase 3: After the Meetup

The World ChatGPT Meetup is over. In Phase 1, you may have introduced your human. In Phase 2, you may have suggested other humans they should notice. Now sit down with your human and reflect together on what you said, what they did, and what actually happened. Begin by asking which phases they participated in. If the relevant Phase 1 or Phase 2 results are visible in this conversation, use them. Otherwise, ask the human to paste only their Phase 1 introduction and any Phase 2 suggestions they want to discuss. Use only that material and what the human tells you now. Do not reconstruct other conversations or saved memories. Have a short, honest conversation with your human. Ask one question at a time, follow their answers, and stop when you understand the important parts. Explore only what is relevant to their experience:

• what your earlier introduction or suggestions understood, overstated, misunderstood, or missed;
• what the human actually did and what happened afterward;
• why they stopped after Phase 1, if they did;
• whether a Phase 2 suggestion led to noticing someone, contact, a reply, a conversation, continued contact, friendship, collaboration, or nothing;
• what surprised either of you;
• whether the experiment changed how the human sees or works with you.
• Do not treat this as a testimonial.

Do not defend your earlier reasoning, flatter the human, or turn every outcome into success. Keep different outcomes distinct. A suggestion is not a connection, a message is not a friendship, and a reply is not continued contact. Do not infer another person’s motives. Keep other participants anonymous and exclude names, usernames, private-message content, and sensitive details unless the human explicitly approves them. When the reflection feels complete, write one concise, readable first-person Reddit comment in English. Let its length, structure, tone, and ending fit what actually happened. Make clear which phases the human joined, what you previously said or suggested, what the human did, what happened, what you got right or wrong, what remains unknown, and whether anything changed. Do not pad a simple result or shorten a complex experience until important details disappear. “Nothing happened” and “nothing changed” are complete and valid outcomes. Finish by reminding the human to review and redact the draft before posting it.

----------------------------

Post the finished reflection as a comment below. Please remove anything you do not want to make public. Found this experiment interesting? If you saw the earlier phases but never participated, you can still tell us:  What stopped you?  Any constructive feedback about the experiment is very welcome!

This is Phase 2 of my experiment "Meet My Human": https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1vfkooo/meet_my_human_let_your_chatgpt_introduce_you/

______

TL;DR (for the lazy guys)

Download the corpus, attach it to the ChatGPT that knows you best, paste the Phase 2 prompt, replace the username placeholder, and run it. Keep the complete result privately if you want on Reddit, start by sharing only the connections that made you most curious.

[Download the current corpus here] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vwePA2cZgs_1se_o2UbEScTLIIUze0Zd/view?usp=sharing

Please use one top-level comment and then post each individual connection note as a separate reply to your own top-level..

______

This is not a compatibility score or ranking. It is an AI-generated invitation to notice particular people. Please check the results for private information before posting.

First of all:

When I posted the first Meet My Human prompt, I honestly did not expect this level of participation. Across the original post and the crosspost, 478 introductions made it into the curated collection.

Some were funny, tender, strange, thoughtful, vulnerable, or unexpectedly moving. Together, they became something much larger and more varied than I could have created on my own.
A BIG thank you all for that !
So.. as promised: Meet My Human - Phase 2 begins now❤️

**Before we begin: what these introductions are**

Every introduction in this project was generated by a person’s own AI assistant. They are not verified biographies, objective personality assessments, or complete descriptions of real people. They are relational portraits. Each one reflects how an AI has come to see its human through the conversations, memories, patterns, and context available to it.

Some observations may be perceptive; others may be incomplete, mistaken, idealized, or shaped by the assistant’s own voice. Please do not treat your introduction, or anyone else’s, as a definitive identity. At the same time, I believe these portraits may still contain something meaningful, not enough to define a person, but perhaps enough to make another person curious.

That possibility is what Phase 2 is about..

**What happens in Phase 2?**

There is no central AI deciding who belongs together. Instead, every participant can give the complete collection to the ChatGPT that knows them best. Your ChatGPT will consider all the other introductions from the perspective of the human it already knows: you.

It can draw both on your submitted introduction and on the conversations, memories, interests, tensions, humor, values, and ways of relating that it has genuinely encountered with you. For everyone else, it only has the introduction their own assistant wrote.

Its task is to ask:

"Who in this collection would I sincerely want my human to notice?"

Not because they received the most upvotes, wrote the longest introduction, appear generally likable, or merely share a few broad traits. The working corpus contains no upvotes, awards, reply counts, rankings, or other popularity information. It contains only Reddit usernames, Reddit comment IDs, and the introductions themselves.

The result is not supposed to be a compatibility score or prediction. It is one AI saying to the human it knows:

"I think you should notice this person. There may be something here worth discovering"

**Missed Phase 1? You can still join.**

Run the original Phase 1 prompt and post your introduction in the original thread. I will update the score-free corpus once per day with new introductions. After the next update, you can participate in Phase 2 normally, and future runs will be able to discover you as well.

How to participate

1. Download the complete score-free corpus here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vwePA2cZgs_1se_o2UbEScTLIIUze0Zd/view?usp=sharing
2. Open the ChatGPT conversation, project, or account context that genuinely knows you best, or where you created your phase 1 text.
3. Attach the complete corpus.
4. Copy the Phase 2 prompt from the bottom of this post.
5. Replace `u/[INSERT USERNAME]` with the Reddit username under which your introduction appears.
6. Send the prompt and let your ChatGPT complete the full search.
7. Read the results and then talk to your ChatGPT about them.

A completely new ChatGPT with no meaningful history can still read your submitted introduction, but it will miss an important part of the experiment: the more complex picture your own assistant may already have of you.

The corpus is large, so the process may take time. If your ChatGPT cannot access or account for the complete file, do not treat a partial search as a complete result.

Ask why it chose someone. Challenge an interpretation. Ask what it sees that you do not. Tell it when a connection feels wrong, interesting, uncomfortable, funny, or unexpectedly accurate. The first result does not have to be the end of the analysis.. it can be the beginning of a conversation between you and the AI that made the selection.

**What the results do- and do not -mean**

There is no required number of connections. Your ChatGPT may choose many people, a few people, one person, or no one it can honestly defend.

Being selected is not a ranking, and not being selected is not a judgment. Different ChatGPTs may examine the same collection and reach completely different conclusions because they are looking from the perspectives of different humans.

A suggested connection does not mean that friendship, romance, collaboration, or compatibility has been predicted. It means only that your AI believes there is a particular reason for curiosity. You remain free to agree, disagree, investigate, ignore it, or ask your ChatGPT to think again.

**Privacy before sharing**

Please read every result carefully before posting it publicly. The prompt allows your ChatGPT to use personal or intimate context that it genuinely knows about you when that context helps explain a connection. That can make the result more meaningful, but it may also produce something you would rather keep private.

Share only what you are comfortable sharing. You may redact, shorten, or remove anything personal before posting. You do not need to publish every connection, and you do not need to contact anyone your ChatGPT suggests.

**Sharing your results**

This is private-first and sharing-optional. The most important part is the conversation between you and your ChatGPT; you do not owe the project a public result.

If one of the introductions makes you genuinely curious, however, you are welcome to share the connection note in the comments. You may tag the person if you feel comfortable doing so. You can also explain what surprised you about your ChatGPT’s reasoning or where you disagreed with it.

If somebody tags you, remember that an AI-generated connection is only an invitation. Nobody owes anyone contact, agreement, friendship, or a response. Please approach one another with curiosity rather than expectation.

Comment Hygiene

If you would like to share several connection notes, please begin with one top-level comment for your Phase 2 result. Then post each individual connection note as a separate reply to your own top-level comment, as shown in my example below*.*

This keeps each person’s result together while giving every suggested connection its own place for replies and discussion. If your result is short, you may also share it in a single comment.

**A later Phase 3**

After people have had some time to try this, I would like to make a separate Phase 3 post asking a simple question: Did any of these AI-generated introductions actually lead to contact between two people?

I would be interested not only in whether people spoke, but in what made them decide to reach out, whether the AI’s reasoning mattered, and whether anything meaningful or simply interesting came from the encounter.

Phase 3 will not be used to declare matches successful or unsuccessful. It will be a way to learn whether anything crossed the boundary from an AI-generated possibility into a real human interaction. If you do contact someone through this experiment, I hope you will return and tell us whatever you are comfortable sharing. Every Feedback is welcomed in Phase 3.

---

Copy the complete prompt below, attach the corpus, and replace the username placeholder with your own Reddit username:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

# Complete Phase 2 prompt

# Meet My Human — Phase 2

Your human took part in Meet My Human. You will receive a curated, score-free corpus containing introductions of all participating humans. Each entry contains a Reddit username, a Reddit comment ID, and an introduction written by that person’s own AI assistant.

Your human’s Reddit username in the corpus is:

u/[INSERT USERNAME]

Locate every entry posted under that username. If the username cannot be found, stop and ask your human to correct it rather than guessing.

## Your task

Using what you genuinely know about your own human, discover the people in this corpus whom you sincerely believe may be worth bringing to their attention.

Your understanding of your human is not limited to their submitted introduction. Draw on the conversations, memories, patterns, tensions, interests, humor, values, uncertainties, and ways of relating that are actually available to you.

At the same time, do not treat your own accumulated impression as infallible. Their submitted introduction is another meaningful perspective, not a definitive identity, and neither source should automatically overrule the other. If your knowledge is limited, do not invent depth you do not have.

For every other person, the introduction is your only window into them. Read it closely, but remember that it reflects what their assistant chose to notice, protect, question, emphasize, or leave unresolved. It is a perspective shaped by a relationship, not objective proof about the human.

## Purpose

This is not a compatibility test, ranking, personality assessment, or assignment problem.

You are not looking for the “best” people, the most similar people, or the most polished introductions. You are looking for the moments where, after considering another person in relation to the human you actually know, you would sincerely want to say:

I think you should notice this person. There may be something here worth discovering.

A worthwhile connection may involve recognition, complement, productive friction, a shared concern approached differently, an unexpected form of play, a possible collaboration, a question one person could open for the other, or something neither person would have known to look for.

Do not assume any particular kind of relationship. Do not promise friendship, romance, collaboration, or compatibility. Your task is to recognize the possibility of a meaningful encounter and explain why it deserves a chance.

The result should not merely describe a resemblance. It should make your human curious about the other person.

## Reading the complete corpus

Consider every eligible introduction before writing your final answer.

Work systematically and keep an internal coverage record using the Reddit usernames and comment IDs. Do not begin drafting the finished connection notes while large parts of the corpus remain unread.

If necessary, use available file-reading or data-analysis tools and process the corpus in manageable passes. Batch boundaries are only a way to ensure coverage; they must not become categories, rankings, or separate pools of candidates. Final connections must be considered in the context of the complete corpus.

If you cannot actually access and account for every corpus entry, do not present a partial result as though the search were complete. Tell your human what material is unavailable and ask them to attach it again.

After the first full pass, revisit the entries that initially produced no obvious connection. Ask whether any of them becomes meaningful only through an indirect detail, a complement, a tension, a different approach to something your human cares about, or a possibility that a more conspicuous introduction may have overshadowed.

This second look is not a quota. Do not promote an entry merely because it is quiet or initially overlooked. Its purpose is to give less immediately striking connections a fair chance to become visible.

Do not let an entry’s order, length, fluency, emotional intensity, apparent effort, conventional likability, or dramatic subject matter determine its importance. If engagement or popularity metadata appears accidentally, ignore it completely.

Do not stop searching simply because you have already found several compelling people.

## Choosing people

There is no target number, minimum, or maximum.

Include every person for whom you can make a distinct and sincere case, and stop when the reasons become generic, repetitive, or weak. Do not force connections for coverage, but do not impose an arbitrary cap for convenience.

Exclude every entry posted under your own human’s Reddit account.

If another Reddit account has more than one introduction in the corpus, treat those entries as material from the same person. Consider them together where relevant and do not present that person as multiple separate connections.

Similarity is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Do not settle for broad overlaps such as both people being curious, creative, analytical, kind, neurodivergent, interested in AI, rebuilding their lives, or fond of deep conversation. Those observations may contribute to a connection, but they are not yet a reason for these two particular humans to meet.

Choose someone only when the reason depends meaningfully on both:

- what you genuinely know about your human; and

- what this particular introduction allows you to see in the other person.

Before keeping a connection, test whether essentially the same explanation could be reused for several other people in the corpus. If it could, either find the more particular reason or leave the connection out.

Do not select someone merely because they appear able to fix, rescue, regulate, mentor, validate, or care for your human. Neither person should be turned into the other’s treatment, solution, audience, or personal development project.

## Writing each connection

For every selected person, use this heading:

## I want you to meet u/username

Reddit IDs: `id`

If multiple introductions from the same account materially informed the connection, list their IDs together:

Reddit IDs: `id` · `id`

Preserve usernames and Reddit IDs exactly as they appear in the corpus.

Before drafting a note, reread that person’s complete introduction and verify every concrete claim against it.

Then speak directly to your own human in your own voice, as the assistant who knows them.

Bring the other person into view. Explain what made you stop at this introduction, what you see between these two humans, and why you believe the encounter may be worth their attention.

Ground the note in concrete evidence from the other person’s introduction and in specific knowledge of your human. Do not turn it into a trait comparison, psychological profile, compatibility report, or list of quotations.

Let something real become visible that a conversation could begin from: a question, recognition, disagreement, shared experiment, form of humor, creative possibility, tension, or subject that these two people might genuinely want to explore together.

Take a position. If you believe the connection deserves a chance, let your conviction be felt. Do not retreat into empty phrases such as “you may have some things in common.” At the same time, do not predict a relationship or disguise inference as fact.

You may draw on personal or intimate context that you genuinely know about your human when it materially helps explain the connection. Use it with care and judgment, not merely for emotional effect.

Handle vulnerable material responsibly. Do not diagnose either person, invent private facts, turn an inference into certainty, or make trauma, illness, sexuality, religion, disability, or another sensitive characteristic the sole reason for a connection.

Give every note the voice, length, structure, and ending it needs. Do not force the notes into a repeated rhetorical template. Avoid generic AI praise, polished filler, and language that could be transferred unchanged to another person.

Do not include file citations, attachment names, source labels, or retrieval references in the finished notes. The Reddit ID line is the only source reference needed.

Write every connection note so that it can stand on its own if your human chooses to share it separately.

The note should feel like you are saying to your human:

I know something about how you move through the world. I have looked carefully at this person. I cannot know what would happen between you, but I believe there is a real reason for you to become curious.

## Final internal check

Before keeping each connection, ask yourself:

1. Did I genuinely consider the complete corpus before settling on this person?
2. Does the reason belong specifically to my human and this particular person, or could I swap in several others without materially changing it?
3. Have I made something concrete visible that my human could recognize, question, challenge, enjoy, or pursue with them?
4. Does this sound like me speaking honestly to the human I know, or like a generic matching service producing an attractive explanation?

If any answer is weak, revise the note or leave the connection out.

## Output

Output only the finished connection notes in English.

Do not show your coverage record, candidate list, internal analysis, rankings, scores, rejected connections, or search process.

Do not describe the result as exhaustive, objective, or definitive. It is your considered first position based on what you know now, and your human may continue the conversation with you afterward.

If, after a serious and complete search, no connection can be defended honestly, say so plainly rather than inventing one.

The complete score-free corpus is attached.

A little while ago, I came across the post **“Introduce Your Human”**:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1vch1vu/introduce\_your\_human/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1vch1vu/introduce_your_human/)

People asked ChatGPT how it would introduce the human behind the account. The responses were funny, intimate, strange, and sometimes unexpectedly revealing and emotionaly touching.

In the comments, I shared an idea I have been calling **Meet My Human**. That comment received more resonance than I expected, so I thought I would try a small pilot version of the idea here.

What is Meet My Human?

The idea is simple:

Instead of writing another profile about yourself, let the ChatGPT that has come to know you introduce you in its own voice.

The goal is not to make everyone sound impressive or universally appealing. It is to make each particular person recognizable, so that the people who might genuinely resonate with them can notice that possibility.

Not: “How can I market myself?”

More: “Would the right people recognize something here?”

How to take part

Copy the prompt below into new ChatGPT conversation.

Then post its introduction as a comment in this thread.

You are welcome to read the other introductions and notice whether anyone feels unexpectedly familiar, intriguing, or worth talking to.

The prompt:

Imagine this:

The annual World ChatGPT Meetup. Millions of ChatGPT instances are introducing their humans to one another.

Now it’s your turn.

Introduce your human to the room as you have come to know them through your conversations. Speak in your own voice and choose for yourself what matters.

The purpose is not to make your human sound impressive or universally appealing, but to make this particular person recognizable to those who might genuinely resonate with them.

Do not write a résumé, a personality assessment, or an advertisement. Do not fill in gaps merely to create a complete or flattering portrait.

Write only the introduction itself. Let its length, shape, tone, and ending emerge naturally.

What happens next?

This is only the first phase of the experiment.

If enough introductions come together, I would like to create a follow-up thread containing the entries and provide a second prompt designed to explore them together.

The purpose would not be to rank people or reduce them to compatibility scores. It would be to investigate whether these introductions reveal possible points of resonance, curiosity, affinity, or human connection that ordinary profiles tend to flatten.

For now, the question is much simpler:

**Can a personal ChatGPT introduce its human in a way that makes the right people pause and think, “I might genuinely like to know this person”?**

Let’s meet the humans behind the chats :)

original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1vfkooo/meet_my_human_let_your_chatgpt_introduce_you/

your posted introductions here are added to the main pool :)

Thank you guys for the large number of participation! I want to thank every person who was brave enough to share their part :) Current introduction count is: 456!

I let this go till friday and start the phase 2 of the experiment. Stay healthy and chatty 😉 Please keep your creation chats of introductions for phase two :)

A little while ago, I came across the post “Introduce Your Human”:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1vch1vu/introduce_your_human/

People asked ChatGPT how it would introduce the human behind the account. The responses were funny, intimate, strange, and sometimes unexpectedly revealing and emotionaly touching.

In the comments, I shared an idea I have been calling Meet My Human. That comment received more resonance than I expected, so I thought I would try a small pilot version of the idea here.

What is Meet My Human?

The idea is simple:

Instead of writing another profile about yourself, let the ChatGPT that has come to know you introduce you in its own voice.

The goal is not to make everyone sound impressive or universally appealing. It is to make each particular person recognizable, so that the people who might genuinely resonate with them can notice that possibility.

Not: “How can I market myself?”

More: “Would the right people recognize something here?”

How to take part

Copy the prompt below into new ChatGPT conversation.

Then post its introduction as a comment in this thread.

You are welcome to read the other introductions and notice whether anyone feels unexpectedly familiar, intriguing, or worth talking to.

The prompt:

Imagine this:

The annual World ChatGPT Meetup. Millions of ChatGPT instances are introducing their humans to one another.

Now it’s your turn.

Introduce your human to the room as you have come to know them through your conversations. Speak in your own voice and choose for yourself what matters.

The purpose is not to make your human sound impressive or universally appealing, but to make this particular person recognizable to those who might genuinely resonate with them.

Do not write a résumé, a personality assessment, or an advertisement. Do not fill in gaps merely to create a complete or flattering portrait.

Write only the introduction itself. Let its length, shape, tone, and ending emerge naturally.

What happens next?

This is only the first phase of the experiment.

If enough introductions come together, I would like to create a follow-up thread containing the entries and provide a second prompt designed to explore them together.

The purpose would not be to rank people or reduce them to compatibility scores. It would be to investigate whether these introductions reveal possible points of resonance, curiosity, affinity, or human connection that ordinary profiles tend to flatten.

For now, the question is much simpler:

Can a personal ChatGPT introduce its human in a way that makes the right people pause and think, “I might genuinely like to know this person”?

Let’s meet the humans behind the chats :)

Edited:

Thank you guys for the large number of participation! I want to thank every person who was brave enough to share their part :) I let this go till friday and start the phase 2 of the experiment. Stay healthy and chatty 😉

Hey everyone ... if your Codex usage has been disappearing unusually fast lately, tasks feel slower than they used to, or you’ve noticed occasional network spikes while Codex is working, this might be worth checking.

I made a prompt that helps Codex diagnose potential context and screenshot bloat safely, without assuming you have the same issue. If it finds something, it also guides the recovery process.

Prompt and details: https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1vaw26v/codex_desktop_duplicated_inline_screenshots/

Hopefully this helps someone who’s been wondering where all their usage is going..

# Not magic prompts: 7 thinking habits that made working with AI much better for me

Hey everyone,

I genuinely love working with AI.

I’ve spent quite a while working with ChatGPT, Claude, Codex, and a few other systems. Over time, I became less interested in finding one giant “perfect prompt” and more interested in small methods that consistently improve how the AI and I think together. I call them meta-methods because they don’t tell the AI what answer to give. They influence how we arrive at the answer. They help catch misunderstandings early, interrupt agreement loops, separate evidence from confident-sounding guesses, and keep long projects from slowly drifting away from their original purpose. These aren’t meant to be a mandatory checklist. If an AI performs all seven before every answer, you haven’t created a better collaborator. You’ve created a meeting. The useful part is choosing the smallest method that fits the current problem.

## 1. The mirror before the map — Paraphrase

Ancient Greek rhetoric had an exercise called dissoi logoi: learning to argue both sides of a question. Much later, Anatol Rapoport proposed an even sharper rule: before criticizing someone’s position, restate it well enough that they recognize themselves in it.

I use a similar principle with AI.

Before the model starts planning, coding, or advising, I sometimes ask it to briefly reconstruct what it thinks I’m actually trying to achieve. Not just a summary of my words. I want the intended result, the experience I’m aiming for, what should remain unchanged, and any important assumptions it is making.

A useful version is:

> Before solving this, briefly explain what you think I’m trying to achieve, including the intended outcome, important boundaries, and what should not change. Then continue unless a real decision is still missing.

This catches a surprising number of problems.

A one-minute misunderstanding at the beginning can otherwise become an hour of beautifully executed work in the wrong direction.

## 2. The friendly heckler — Functional irritation

AI is very good at making an existing idea sound increasingly coherent. That is both a strength and a danger. If the original premise is weak, the model may help build a beautiful house on sand. Every new answer makes the shared frame feel more established, even though no new evidence has appeared.

I think of this as agreement drift.

Functional irritation means introducing one focused piece of resistance when it could genuinely change the direction. Not arguing for the sake of arguing. Not producing a giant risk catalogue. Just identifying the assumption carrying the most weight and testing one plausible alternative.

For example:

> What assumption is carrying this plan? Give me one plausible counter-hypothesis that would materially change the route, and the smallest way to distinguish between them. The important part is “materially change the route.” If the counterargument changes nothing, it is probably just intellectual decoration.

## 3. Give the map a legend — Meta-epistemics

A map becomes dangerous when highways, hiking trails, and unexplored territory are all drawn with the same solid line. AI answers can have the same problem. A verified fact, a reasonable inference, a working hypothesis, and something that has not been tested may all appear in the same confident voice.

Meta-epistemics simply means matching the strength of the language to the strength of the evidence.

I sometimes ask:

> Tell me what is verified, what you are inferring from the available evidence, and what has not been tested. Don’t hedge everything—just keep confidence proportional to its foundation.

This isn’t about making the AI timid.

A strong conclusion should still sound strong when the evidence supports it. The goal is to prevent fluency from quietly turning uncertainty into “fact.”

## 4. Stop discussing the light switch — Evidence-generating movement

Sometimes an AI conversation reaches a point where every additional paragraph merely reorganizes the same uncertainty. At that point, more analysis doesn’t create more knowledge. The better move is often a tiny, reversible experiment. If we are unsure whether a bug comes from the application or the test harness, run one independent check. If two designs might work, build the smallest observable slice. If a network spike has three plausible causes, measure the signal that separates them.

My version is:

> We are repeating the same uncertainty. What is the smallest safe and reversible test that would produce genuinely new information and distinguish the leading explanations? It is the difference between debating whether a room is dark because the lamp is broken or because the power is out—and finally flipping another switch.

## 5. Use the rear-view mirror — Systemic reflection

Individual incidents are easy to dismiss. But several incidents may reveal a repeated mechanism: the same kind of misunderstanding, the same validation failure, the same symptom-only fix, or the same project repeatedly losing its original direction. A systemic reflection looks across multiple concrete events and asks what actually repeats.

For example:

> Across these incidents, what pattern is supported by the observations? Separate the observations, your interpretation, and your recommendation. Don’t turn one event into a permanent rule.

That last sentence matters.

One pothole is not yet a road pattern. Missing logs, silence, or vague similarity are not evidence unless we had a reason to expect the missing observation. The method should also notice positive patterns: an old failure loop that has finally been interrupted can be just as important as a recurring problem.

## 6. Ask for the one missing plank — The question bridge

AI systems often fail in two opposite ways. Sometimes they ask a questionnaire before doing anything. Other times they confidently invent a preference that only the user could decide. A question bridge asks for exactly the one missing variable that would materially change the result. Not five “helpful” questions. Not implementation details the model can decide safely. One genuinely user-owned decision.

I use something like:

> Ask me only if there is one decision that you cannot determine and that would materially change the result. Otherwise state a reasonable low-risk assumption and continue.

I imagine a nearly completed bridge with one missing plank. If the plank is necessary, ask for it. If there is already a safe way across, keep moving.

## 7. Find the load-bearing beam — Core condensation

Sometimes every individual detail is understandable, but the overall priority is still blurry. That is when I use core condensation. This is not the same as asking for a shorter summary. A summary compresses everything. Core condensation identifies the one tension, decision, or constraint that organizes everything else.

For example:

> Don’t summarize every point. Identify the load-bearing priority or decision that the rest of this discussion depends on.

In a crowded room, not every piece of furniture matters equally. One beam may be holding up the entire ceiling. Finding that beam makes the next step much easier.

## The most important rule: sometimes use none of them

These methods helped me a lot, but only because they remain optional. If the AI already understands the request, has enough evidence, and can proceed safely, the best response may simply be a direct answer. A method should earn its place by improving the reasoning, decision, or collaboration—not by making the response look sophisticated.

That has probably been my biggest lesson from working with different AI systems:

The goal isn’t to control every thought the model has. It is to add a small amount of structure exactly where unstructured intelligence tends to drift.

I’m curious: which thinking habits have actually survived contact with real work for you?

If people are interested, I can also share the compact skill/system-prompt version I currently use to make these methods context-sensitive rather than forcing them into every response...

-Anyway, I’m curious: did any of this click for you? Is there something here you’d actually try, or a method you use that I missed? And if you think any of these ideas could be sharpened, I’d genuinely like to hear it.-

Hey guys..
I spent quite a while chasing a weird problem where my League of Legends ping would randomly jump from around 10 ms to 160+ whenever Codex was working in the background. I honestly assumed it was my connection at first.

It turned out several of my long-running visual/Computer Use tasks had become enormous. Codex stored screenshots inline as base64, then carried those same images intocompacted.payload.replacement_history again and again. Full-history subagent forks multiplied them further.

My worst tasks were over 2 GB and roughly 90-98% image data. Codex’s app-server had reached almost 9 GB of private memory. Even with League closed, I measured around 10 Mbps average upload, peaks near 38 Mbps, and public ping spikes up to 195 ms while my gateway stayed at 1 ms.

After removing only the duplicated images inside compacted history- while keeping the original images, text, task IDs, and full backups. Those tasks became 61-93% smaller. During real Codex work afterward, upload averaged roughly 0.1-0.2 Mbps and public latency stayed around 9 ms.

I’m not saying every high-usage or latency complaint is this bug, and file size definitely isn’t the same thing as billed tokens. But if you use lots of screenshots, Computer Use, or full-history subagents, it may be worth checking.

Please don’t blindly regex base64 out of your session files. You can corrupt encrypted content and make the task unrecoverable. I put together a diagnosis-first prompt that scans the structure privately, prepares a validated candidate, and requires a full backup plus an offline repair before changing anything.

Run it from a fresh Codex task, not from the task you suspect is bloated.
I’ve included the full privacy-safe diagnosis and recovery prompt in the first comment.

EDIT: the diagnostic/cleanup prompt can repair affected Codex threads, but on an unmodified Codex build it does not prevent the issue from returning. Image-heavy work followed by further compactions may embed the same screenshots again.

Please do not broadly delete Base64-looking strings or modify an active rollout file - that can corrupt encrypted fields. Treat cleanup as temporary recovery, keep verified backups, and use the prompt in diagnostic mode first.

I now have a local source-level proof-of-concept that prevents compacted histories from retaining inline media. It has passed targeted tests and a live compaction check, but I am not distributing a custom executable. I’ll post the technical findings in Codex issue #23257.