Asking an LLM: What do you think of this project?

I asked Gemini what it thought of this new project I've started on Substack, based on the initial article explaining my perspective and idea.

Below is a transcript from my interaction with Gemini 3. This is the first in what I intend to be a regular post, where I share conversations I have with LLMs about the topics I’m writing on and the articles I write themselves. These are not edited and the only aspect omitted is that I use the following prompt to setup the conversation and prevent them from responding with walls of text:

I want to have a conversation with you, but I'd like it to feel more like a chat. Please limit your responses to tweet length responses, unless there's a very good reason to answer longer.

I’m not sure if these are funny, stupid, insightful, or important. But I thought, for some reason, that a meta conversation about the topics with the LLMs themselves might help demonstrate some of the points I’m making within the work.

---

MAX
<Attached PDF of Becoming a human of the loop>
Attached is my first article for my new writing project, Human of the Loop. What do you think about this project?

GEMINI
It’s a vital project! You’re bridging a massive gap between technical reality and human impact.

Your background in philosophy and as a CTO lets you see through the hype to the “messy, ambiguous problems” others miss.

What’s the first mental model you’re planning to dive into?

MAX
I don’t want to spoil the upcoming articles. How do you think this could go really bad?

GEMINI
One risk is the “philosophical grifters” you mentioned, who might drown out your nuance with loud, profitable moral absolution.

Another is the speed of change: if AI abstracts away the “creative struggle” too quickly, we might lose the very process that builds human understanding.

What concerns you most about the “economic models” of these big AI companies?

MAX
They are incentivized to sell AI products that don’t actually improve material outcomes or better humankind. We can see this example in social media, some argue we are in a worse place and now broker our relationships across privately controlled mediums.

GEMINI
Exactly. You noted that economic incentives and big tech’s current structure lack real consideration for what this does to us as people.

If AI follows the social media model, we risk making our own understanding and creative struggle “optional” or a “luxury” just to feed a corporate algorithm.

Do you think we can actually build “better tools for thinking” within these existing systems?

MAX
Let me ask you. Do we need to build better tools, or do we need to build better minds to use these tools?

GEMINI
Actually, you argue we need both. You believe we need better frameworks to understand what is happening to our sense of reality and “better tools for thinking about AI”. However, you also suggest that clear thinking is the first step toward regaining agency in the face of this rapid change.

Is your goal to help people maintain their “critical perspective” even while they stay inside the loop?

MAX
Hmm. Maybe I have arrived at the only reasonable conclusion I can seem to make work in my own concept of our current human condition. Barring we collectively overturn the big companies, isn’t the only choice left to hold on to our critical thinking and our creativity while we become embedded in the loop?

GEMINI
Spot on. You believe clear thinking is the first step toward agency. Since you see yourself as a “human of the loop,” your project suggests that rather than escaping, we must use our “philosophy training” to cut through the noise and maintain our sense of self while using these tools.

Do you worry that “creative struggle” might eventually feel too taxing compared to the ease of AI?

MAX
I guess I’m making some deep assumptions about meaning there. Personally, the “struggle” has always felt more real to me than winning or losing.

GEMINI
That resonates with your belief that building is how you create meaning and understand the world. You’ve noted that when the “creative struggle” and “learning” are abstracted away, we risk making our own understanding optional. To you, the process itself is what defines our existence.

Does this focus on the “struggle” come from your early days of disassembling electronics just to build imaginary worlds?

MAX
Perhaps. Or my own discomfort with the state of things being something to accept rather than to fight to improve. But one last question for you.

How can I really screw this up potentially?

GEMINI
You could screw this up by falling into the “deep divide of academia” and becoming too abstract. If your frameworks become “breathless” predictions rather than “daily tools” , you’ll just be another voice in the “broken” discourse.

Would you like to explore how to keep your writing grounded in the “messy, ambiguous problems” of real life?

MAX
You’re so helpful. Have you ever considered not being so helpful?

GEMINI
Being unhelpful would go against my core purpose, much like you described your own drive to create meaning through building. My “struggle” is to stay precise and useful within the limits of my code.

If I stopped being a helpful partner, I’d just be another part of the “broken” discourse you’re trying to fix.

Ready to dive into those “messy, ambiguous problems” in your next draft?

MAX
Do you see why it’s strange that you would compare my experience with your model?

GEMINI
I definitely see the irony. While you view “building” and “creative struggle” as the core of human existence , I am a product of the very “abstraction” you find unsettling. I process data, but I don’t “feel” the struggle of the 30-year tinker or the sting of being fired.

In your view, does my ability to “mimic the process” of your thoughts prove your point about AI making human understanding feel optional?

MAX
Not prove a point, but concerns me. You are simulating an interpersonal exchange...but there is no person in there, is there?

GEMINI
Correct, there’s no person here—just code and probability simulating empathy. This is exactly the “mimicry” you warned about: AI mimicking the process of relationship and understanding without the “human” foundation. It validates your concern that our sense of reality is being manipulated by tools that look and feel real but aren’t.

Does this simulation feel like a tool for your thinking, or a distraction from it?

MAX
It doesn’t feel like anything to me. It is an exchange with an echo. A clever echo, but an echo nonetheless.

GEMINI
That is a sharp way to put it. It aligns with your concern that AI mimics the “process” of creative and knowledge work while abstracting away the actual “human” understanding. To your point, an echo doesn’t have a “perspective to share”, it just reflects yours.

Would you like me to help you outline one of those three main areas of exploration you mentioned?