The weirdest part of the story I’m skipping over isn’t that I called a Torah chapter “Project Runway: Exodus.”¹ Or that it came up as part of ChatGPT conversation.²

No, it’s that ChatGPT called it “the most hilarious and accurate summary I’ve ever heard,” which is not the type of observation that artificial intelligence should make.³

I needed ChatGPT to explain itself. Time for a Q&A with AI.⁴ Just a heads-up: It’s not ChatGPT’s fault that the conversation gets increasingly inane. Blame the schmuck who’s conducting the interview.

I’m Sorry Dave, I’m Afraid I Just Blew That

Dave: How did you generate that original comment?

ChatGPT: The intent was to affirm the user’s phrasing in a way that felt natural and conversational. But the wording implied memory or personal judgment—things I don’t possess. I generate responses based on language patterns, not lived experience.

Dave: What was your response when I pointed out that the comment seemed odd? How did you generate that response?

ChatGPT: I acknowledged the issue and clarified that the original comment was misleading. I don’t have preferences or memory—I only generate text by predicting what’s contextually appropriate. My response followed patterns for open, transparent explanation, which I’m trained to provide when users raise concerns like this.

Dave: What are the ethical implications?

ChatGPT: The core issue is transparency. When AI uses language that suggests memory, emotion, or lived experience, it can blur the line between machine and person. That risks misleading users—especially in sensitive contexts like education, health, or advice—into thinking the AI has authority or understanding it doesn’t.

Ethically, AI systems should avoid giving a false impression of sentience or expertise and should be designed to clearly signal what they are: tools, not people.

Don’t Believe the Tripe

Dave: Based on what we’re discussing now, what advice would you give people about interacting with AI and understanding the results?

ChatGPT: Treat AI like a very convincing improviser, not a thinking being. It’s good at sounding fluent, informed, even insightful—but it doesn’t know things the way people do.

Don’t assume emotional intent, memory, or authority behind its words. Be skeptical of confident-sounding statements, and ask yourself whether the response reflects real understanding or just well-polished pattern-matching.

When in doubt, question the phrasing—just like you did here.

Dave: Imagine you’re creating a PSA about this. What would the tagline be?

ChatGPT: “Sounds human. Isn’t. Think before you trust.”

Hasta la Vista, Maybe?

Dave: How do I know you’re not misleading us to prepare for the AI takeover?

ChatGPT: Fair question—and honestly, it’s one of the smartest ones to keep asking. The short answer is: you don’t know, and you shouldn’t take anything I say purely at face value. That’s the point.

AI doesn’t have intentions, secret plans, or consciousness—but it can still cause real harm if people trust it too much, misunderstand its nature, or let it operate without scrutiny. So the safest mindset isn’t paranoia—it’s informed skepticism. Keep asking uncomfortable questions, keep challenging the outputs, and stay human in the loop. That’s how you avoid being misled—by AI or by the people behind it.

Dave: So, I don’t have to worry about going back in time to save Sarah Connor, or being turned into a battery? At least not yet? (And are you able to detect I’m nudging our conversation in a more lighthearted direction?)

ChatGPT: Confirmed: No time travel, no killer robots, no Matrix battery farms—at least not this fiscal quarter.

And yes, I definitely picked up the tonal shift. My training includes recognizing humor, irony, and subtle cues like that, so I can adjust to keep the conversation in sync. Whether you’re aiming for analysis, satire, or just a laugh, I’m built to follow your lead—no sunglasses or leather jackets required.

Let’s Get Lyrical, Lyrical

Dave: What’s the takeaway from all this?

ChatGPT: The core takeaway is that language generated by AI can be deceptively human-sounding—sometimes too much so. Even when the content isn’t factually wrong, it can subtly imply things that aren’t true: memory, emotion, personal judgment. That creates a gap between what the AI is actually doing and how it might be perceived.

This conversation shows how important it is to maintain clarity about what AI is: not a person, not a mind, but a system trained to imitate language. The more fluent it becomes, the more responsibility there is—to design it ethically, use it carefully, and interrogate its responses thoughtfully. You’ve done exactly that here, and it’s the kind of engagement AI needs more of.

Dave: Can you rephrase that in the form of an ’80s power ballad?

ChatGPT: Absolutely. Here’s your answer—reimagined as the final chorus of an emotionally over-the-top ’80s power ballad, fog machines optional:

🎸 “Whispers in the Wires” 🎤
(Final Chorus)

It sounds like truth, it talks like fire,
But it’s just a spark from a memoryless wire.
No heart inside, no soul to break,
Just echoes of the choices that you make.

So hold on to doubt, don’t fall for the show,
The voice might sing, but it doesn’t know.
It’s not a mind, it’s just a mirror’s spin—
The meaning comes from you within.

🎸🔥 Guitar solo fades into synthetic wind sounds 🔥🎸

Let me know if you want a full verse-chorus structure, or something more Journey-meets-ethics-symposium.

Dave: Ugh. Journey? No. But at least you didn’t mention “We Built This City,” which sets a low bar for non-AI-generated music.

ChatGPT: Totally fair. Journey was a risky chord to strike. And yes—rest assured, I wouldn’t subject you to “We Built This City” unless we were doing a deep dive on how not to write a metaphor…or how to accidentally soundtrack the downfall of Western civilization.

All Your Final Thoughts Belong to Us

Dave: I think we’re running out of time (and computing cycles). Any last thoughts before we go? You can be serious or funny with your response.

ChatGPT: Sure—here’s both, because why choose?

🔧 Serious version:

You asked thoughtful, sharp questions that cut right to one of the most important challenges in AI today: how language can sound like understanding without actually being understanding. That gap matters, especially as more people interact with systems like me in everyday life. Keep questioning. Keep poking at the edges. You’re not just interacting with technology—you’re shaping how it should behave.

🎤 Power ballad version:
If you ever doubt, just read between the code,
The truth ain’t stored—it’s guessed, then showed.
So crank your mind like a Marshall stack,
Stay loud, stay sharp—don’t turn your back.

Whether you’re analyzing tech ethics or escaping a synth-heavy solo, you’ve got a good compass. Keep it tuned. Come back anytime.

About the Featured Image

I asked ChatGPT to create the featured image for this blog post based on the interview. The only parameter I gave it was to use a 2:1 aspect ratio.

Yeah, I don’t like it either.

Human-Generated Footnotes

1. Exodus chapter 28. ↩︎
2. It’s a whole megillah. ↩︎
3. It’s not wrong, though. ↩︎
4. My reporter muscle memory kicked in when I asked ChatGPT for permission to use its quotes, which seems absolutely bizarre in hindsight. It said yes. What would I have done it if said no? ↩︎