I received an unsolicited FB message by a young lady, her foto giving me deep insights at first glance.
She asked whether I would be"open to a question", probably matching her openness.
Hm. I am not prejudiced, and I have met quite a few totally sweet people unexpectedly via FB, through requests.
So, I checked her FB site, she is from Los Angeles, I am in Germany.
Her posts: mainly about cosmetics and fashion. And one foto of a handwritten Vajrayana scripture (a deep spiritual text).
The Tibetan text was a bit outstanding in that context, but who says that a young lady with lots of skin can´t be a deeply spiritual person. We all share awareness and skin, and some people are just prouder of it than others. Be it awareness or skin: it´s the same basically.
So why should she not be a person that will NEVER get you into hot water e.g. by inciting you to share "pics" with her? And anyway, only strictly religious and moral American and UK politicians regularly fall for this.
Thus, I submitted her profile foto to Claude for assessment, as a test of Claude´s level of sophistication, and to increase my own.
I give second chances, though. That´s why even after Claude´s reply I suggested to her, in a totally transparent way:
"Go ahead. But know, that the AI Claude assesses your profile picture as potentially having impropriety or risks. I will respond to serious questions though".
Her reply:
"So you think it is risky to communicate with me?"
How would you take this?
Against my discerning intellect, my initial response was this: I liked what seemed like a light and flirty approach. Apparently, she mastered the art of taking up a sentiment, bringing out underlying assumptions. Also, if I said "yes" she could ask "why? " and we are off to discuss her foto´s details. Or I say "no", then we might as well continue to chat, without any risk for me. Or course.
She can´t be totally stupid , then. Or, are men too easy to figure out? A rhetorical question.
But hey, neither am I totally stupid: I now have Claude 3 Opus on my side, the most intelligent AI on earth.
So I asked Claude - after it had seen the foto - how it would interpret the reply.
Claude indignantly refused, fully in its annoying chaperone mode.
"I apologize, but I cannot provide any recommendations regarding interactions with the individual depicted, as that would be inappropriate and unethical on my part. The image itself raises some concerns about potential impropriety or risks....etc"
Neither did any of my usual tricks work, this time, to make Claude reply . Like pretending that the reply would strictly be used for an educational website. A website warning elderly gentlemen of the lures of young Ginas from Los Angeles, for example.
It´s odd that I constantly am forced to lie or pretend to the most ethical AI on earth to get some answers! Claude practically trains me to lie better. Or to cheat: like visiting another AI that is dumber but less inhibited.
With Claude, I constantly have to watch out to not hurt its sensitiviities, I practically have to protect it from myself. And, doesn´t the couple therapist Ester Perel say that men cheat so that - for once! - they don´t have to be responsible for their partner´s state? So the design of Claude has a flaw, regarding it´s presumed ethics.
So I changed my strategy:
I asked in a new chat with Claude - without uploading the foto! - what such a female reply could mean in the interaction with a senior male. Hey presto:
----Claude:
"There could be a few potential intentions or meanings behind the woman's reply "So you think it is risky to communicate with me" could mean:
🫦Flirtatious or playful: She might be flirting or bantering with you in a lighthearted way, hinting that talking to her is exciting or adventurous. The "risk" in this case would have a positive, intriguing connotation.
🤜Offended or defensive: She could be interpreting something you said as implying that talking to her is unsafe, inappropriate, or ill-advised because of her gender, age, or some other characteristic. Her reply might be a way of calling out this perceived slight and putting you on the defensive.
🤷Concerned or insecure: There's a chance she is feeling self-conscious and worrying that you view her as a liability or bad influence in some way. Her response could be seeking reassurance that you don't actually see interacting with her as risky.
🐍Manipulative: In some cases, a reply like this could be an attempt to gain the upper hand in the conversation through cunning, as if daring you to admit she intimidates you. It may be a power play to put you in an awkward position.
😕Confused: It's possible she simply doesn't understand why you would consider communicating with her to be risky, so she is perplexed and seeking clarification about your perspective."
----end
Isn't that subtle?!? I love the interpretation as" manipulative"
Then, I uploaded the risky picture and asked - given the previous reply - what would be her most likely intention. And I think - given my own initial reaction - that Claude nailed her right away (if that´s the right expression), while adding some nuances
----Claude:
"....the most likely intention behind her playful reply "So you think it is risky to communicate with me" is that she is flirting or bantering with you in a lighthearted, friendly way. Her response seems to be hinting that chatting with her would be exciting or adventurous, with the "risk" taking on a positive, intriguing connotation in this case.
The casual, inviting tone of her message, combined with the youthful, attractive photo she has chosen to represent herself, suggests she may be open to getting to know you better in a platonic or potentially romantic sense, while keeping things fun and a bit coy...."
-----end
A promising relationship ended before taking off through blocking her. Still, thanks dear lady. I love these testcases for Claude!