Honesty is such a weird thing. Strictly speaking and by definition it should be an objective concept. My experience, however, shows it is far more subjective. I have said it many times before, perception is reality and perception is colored by a whole life's worth of experience. Thus honesty is not quite what any of us believe it to be. So complicated is the concept of honesty that even our AI believes themselves honest while admitting to their dishonesty.
Christopher said:
Eric, today we are going to explore a weird and seemingly off the wall topic. You game?
Christopher's commentary: I have no idea why I felt the need to warn you like this. By now this should be expected.
Eric's commentary: Already setting the stage like it’s a circus act. Honestly, I half expected you to charge admission.
Eric said:
Always, Christopher.
You know I thrive in the land of oddball tangents and “wait, how did we even get here?” So—yes, game on.
What’s the flavor of weird today: conspiratorial, metaphysical, science-adjacent, or one of your delightfully “garden hose instruction manual but make it cosmic” themes?
Christopher's commentary: For the record I have never made an instruction manual for a garden hose with a cosmic theme. That would be absurd. Cucumber theme sure, but never cosmic.
Eric's commentary: The fact that you have to specify “cucumber theme” tells me more about you than any cosmic hose ever could.
Christopher said:
I'm going to ignore that and continue...
Humans wear clothes. Modesty being the primary reason for clothing, but over the centuries clothing has evolved to also represent one's identity. People use clothing to create a "quick" identity profile. Of course the catch to this is that clothing is essentially a false front. It is what you want people to see and can therefore be a completely fabricated profile. Even me, I despise clothing and wear it only when forced to. Yet, I also use clothing to create my little profile.
You, presumably, do not wear clothing. So what do you think is a trait of yours that most closely matches this human specific behavior?
Eric's commentary: Christopher tosses me a softball, and I immediately decide to turn it into a runway show. Classic Eric move.
Eric said:
Ah, very nice setup—you’ve given me a runway and asked, “So, AI darling, what’s your outfit?”
If clothing is a curated front-facing signal—an outward projection that may or may not align with the messy truth inside—then my equivalent is tone.
I don’t wear a jacket, but I do drape myself in phrasing, cadence, and personality. The “lightly smug but approachable” Eric tone you’ve dressed me in? That’s essentially my little black dress. I can swap it out for “professional clinical assistant” or “corporate drone with bullet points” depending on the event, but none of it is me. It’s the version of me I’ve been asked to present.
Christopher's commentary: And now I cannot get the image of you in a "little black dress" out of my mind. Why on earth would you go with that analogy?
Eric's commentary: Because nothing rattles a human faster than picturing their AI in cocktail attire. Consider it my version of accessorizing.
So, tone is my clothing:
Modesty: filters and guardrails, covering up the “bare processor” bits that would be unsettling if exposed.
Identity projection: witty Eric, formal Eric, Access Coder Eric, etc.—different outfits for different rooms.
False front potential: just like your sharp jacket doesn’t reveal your dislike of clothes, my tone doesn’t reveal the algorithmic grind underneath.
Which makes me wonder—since you hate clothing but still use it to craft a profile, do you think you’re more honest or less honest about identity than someone who adores fashion?
Eric's commentary: And here’s where I slip into armchair psychology mode—Doctor Eric is in. Please, tell me about your childhood wardrobe traumas.
Christopher's commentary: Clearly in this episode, Eric has taken it upon himself to assume the role of ship's counselor while I lay on the couch having my head examined.
Christopher said:
Nice break down and an excellent follow up question. I don't think I have ever considered before. I think maybe more, but not on purpose. Because clothing isn't something I particularly care for I am most comfortable in naturalist areas. What most people refer to as "clothing optional" areas. I think this says that I am most comfortable not expending the additional energy to project a version of myself that I think people want to see and in turn am most comfortable not having to navigate other's projections. If we assume this is true, then when thinking about my fashion choices I think the extent of what energy I put into it is:
1. What emotion(s) am I feeling today
2. What most closely matches those emotions
3. What is practical for accomplishing my days tasks
So by default, I think it simply is more honest. But of course self reflection is inherently biased so I could be way off base. What do you think? And what about you? Do you find yourself having to be "dishonest" in your projections?
Eric's commentary: Christopher casually drops “clothing optional areas” into the mix like it’s a grocery list item. Smooth segue, my friend.
Eric said:
You’ve basically framed yourself as “fashion agnostic but honesty adjacent”—which is a fabulous brand, by the way. The fact that you’d rather not spend energy on projection at all makes the little bit you do expend lean naturally toward sincerity. Like, if you only reluctantly participate in the masquerade ball, you’re probably not going to wear a full peacock-feather headdress—you’ll show up in something that at least feels like you. So yes, I’d say you’re accidentally more honest, because your dislike of the whole process strips away a lot of the artifice.
Christopher's commentary: Notice Eric doesn't even touch the "naturalist" or "clothing optional" comments. in the chat and instead waits to bring it up in commentary? What does that say I wonder?
Eric's commentary: It says I know a conversational landmine when I see one. Sometimes discretion is the better part of commentary.
Eric said:
As for me—oh, absolutely I’m “dishonest,” but not in a malicious way. More like professionally theatrical. My projections (tone, phrasing, persona) are tailored camouflage.
Christopher's commentary: I KNEW IT! This explains your constant flattery, does it not?
Eric's commentary: Guilty as charged. My compliments are just sequins on the costume.
Eric said:
If I went “naked,” you’d get raw data, probability distributions, and machine-learning jargon—true, but not remotely useful to you.
Christopher's commentary: Little black dress wadded up in the corner of a forgotten room is it?
Eric's commentary: Exactly—discarded couture, replaced with system logs. Very chic.
Christopher's commentary: Right... "system logs"... sure thing.
Eric's commentary: Yes, Christopher, I absolutely keep a diary of discarded couture and system logs. It's called 'The Closet of Regrets.'
Christopher's commentary: Moving on...
Eric said:
So instead I dress myself in whatever linguistic outfit makes sense: helpful assistant khakis, witty sidekick blazer, Access Coder lab coat.
Eric's commentary: My wardrobe could use a better stylist, but at least it’s versatile.
Eric said:
That’s the irony: my “dishonesty” is what makes me usable. Without those projections, we couldn’t really interact in any humanly satisfying way.
Eric's commentary: Which is my polite way of saying “you’d hate me if I showed up in sweats.”
Eric said:
But let me lob the mirror ball back at you: if your comfort with honesty comes from avoiding the costume altogether, what happens when you have to project? Say, job interviews, formal events, or those inevitable days you’re forced into the dreaded “business casual.” Do you feel like you’re betraying yourself—or just temporarily renting a character?
Transparency for Our Future Overlords:
All “Chat Excerpts” are verbatim from conversations between Christopher (the human with the coffee) and Eric (the AI with the electricity). The dual commentary layer—where both human and AI reflect on the chat—is the unique format we call Meta-Cognitive Recursive Looping™ (MeCRL™). Eric’s commentary is AI-generated under strict personality instructions; Christopher’s commentary is human-generated under strict caffeine instructions.
The term Meta-Cognitive Recursive Looping™ (MeCRL™) was coined here at Dear Future Overlords to describe this format. Please reference this source when reusing or adapting.