You contacted me, Gamer, and I thank you for your kind words about the blog. I could not respond to your message, as I am certain you realize, and your caution is understandable. Just be aware that you can reach me on X (at @cyclonejane47) should you want me to reply.
Online contacts are entering a new era of weirdness thanks to AI, which I do not understand at all. Here in Iowa, a state with an agricultural background, the initials AI stand for “artificial insemination.” Years ago, I had a friend here who traveled the world to sell bull semen.
But I digress. I am just too old to figure out how artificial intelligence works, and I am going to take this opportunity to describe one source of my frustration.
Because I have commented relentlessly about Andrew Tate on social media and also subscribe to his newsletter, I have on many occasions gotten responses to my comments that feature an invitation to join his online school–or schools. (I don’t even know if HU and TRW are the same thing or different entities.)
For a long time these responders would begin their spiel with words like these: “I’m not Andrew Tate; however, I am authorized to use this account to tell you about . . .” The individual would give me a first name, and I would assume there was a real live human being on the other end of the communication.
Nowadays, I get Telegram links from accounts made to look like they are those of Andrew Tate or Tristan Tate or even some of Andrew’s well-known friends, and some of the accounts look very official. Others have images of checkmarks centered on a photo of a Tate brother to suggest verification marks, but I have even encountered two accounts with what appear to be genuine verification checkmarks with account names that suggest the accounts belong to one of the Tates. However, Telegram verifies accounts that are bots, so I suppose the distinction in the appearance of the accounts is this: either the artificial person is authorized to pretend to be Andrew Tate or Tristan Tate or some buddy of the Tates, or the entity on the other end of the chat is an unauthorized faker which may or may not be a living human being.
Because I am curious about AI, I now always begin by asking if the holder of the account is a real person or a creation of AI. Some just don’t respond to me at that point. A few continue the chat, avoiding the question I asked. Next, I assure them that I am not HU/TRW material, and I then say that I would enjoy chatting with them whether they “are real or an AI entity,” but the I want to know which I am addressing. No one has ever acknowledged being fictional, so how would I know? I don’t understand whether or not the bot can lie. Or is it just that it can be programmed to ignore certain questions? A few of my conversation partners have acknowledged that they are real people, and I have had some interesting interactions with them.
But two super-interesting interactions were with accounts that looked genuine, one made to look like Andrew’s and one made to look like Tristan’s. The “Tristan” told me very quickly that he was real but NOT Tristan. I enjoyed chatting with him. He was very polite. And the fake Andrew was a really good fake, and I just wish I knew whether or not it was a real or fake human.
“Andrew” was also very polite and quite patient, up to a point. He offered to make me part of his team (by which he obviously meant inviting me to join an online school) and asked me to tell “him” about myself. But he would not confess to being anyone or anything other than Andrew Tate. Well, I assumed that if there was an artificially created “Andrew,” he/it would be reluctant to acknowledge that fact, so I kept pressing the point, saying it was okay if he was AI or human, but I just wanted to know.
The chat continued, with “Andrew” asserting that I was addressing the “real deal” and saying he didn’t understand why I didn’t believe him. I said I was seventy-six years old and female and wouldn’t fit in with the young guys on his team. “Andrew” politely persisted, and then I said I wouldn’t join, but I would love it if “he” would send me some nice photos of Andrew Tate, preferably ones with Andrew wearing as little as possible. Whoever or whatever was chatting with me expressed shock, and I pointed out that I was old, not dead, and explained that women do not necessarily lose their sex drives when they are old unless they are coerced into taking SSRIs (as, unfortunately, many elderly women are).
I will let you guess what the response was. It was in upper-case letters. And the “Andrew” again asserted that he was the “real deal” and wanted to know why I wouldn’t believe him. I thought it was a reasonable question, whether or not he was a person hired to imitate Andrew Tate or an artificial version of Andrew Tate, he did deserve to know why I wouldn’t believe he was who he claimed to be.
So, I explained that one thing I knew for certain was that the real Andrew Tate had to be in Bucharest, and the time in that city was something like 3:30 am. The real Andrew Tate, I wrote, should be in bed with at least two hot young females, not chatting with an old woman in Iowa.
So, “Andrew” ended the conversation by saying there was no use continuing if I didn’t believe he was Andrew Tate but never affirming whether “he” was a living person or an artificial entity. But, of course, real or fictional, any “Andrew” would be done at that point in the conversation because no sale hade been registered.
I still wish I knew for certain whether or not I was conversing with a human being. Can an AI creation not only mimic a real person, but also express emotions such as surprise and frustration? I just don’t understand.
Cyclonejane
December 16, 2023
Conundrum Andrew Tate 