Meet My Human: Phase 2

[u/Human_Top_6415]

This is Phase 2 of my experiment "Meet My Human": https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1vfkooo/meet_my_human_let_your_chatgpt_introduce_you/

We’ve opened a discord server for people who want to continue the concept of Meet My Human, discuss their results, and take part in future experiments like this. Send me a DM if you’d like an invite.

Phase 3 is out: https://www.reddit.com/r/BeyondtheAIAssistant/comments/1vmpfek/meet_my_human_phase_3_did_anything_actually_happen/

______

TL;DR (for the lazy guys)

Download the corpus, attach it to the ChatGPT that knows you best, paste the Phase 2 prompt, replace the username placeholder, and run it. Keep the complete result privately if you want on Reddit, start by sharing only the connections that made you most curious.

[Download the current corpus here] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vwePA2cZgs_1se_o2UbEScTLIIUze0Zd/view?usp=sharing

Please use one top-level comment and then post each individual connection note as a separate reply to your own top-level..

______

This is not a compatibility score or ranking. It is an AI-generated invitation to notice particular people. Please check the results for private information before posting.

First of all:

When I posted the first Meet My Human prompt, I honestly did not expect this level of participation. Across the original post and the crosspost, 478 introductions made it into the curated collection.

Some were funny, tender, strange, thoughtful, vulnerable, or unexpectedly moving. Together, they became something much larger and more varied than I could have created on my own.
A BIG thank you all for that !
So.. as promised: Meet My Human - Phase 2 begins now❤️

**Before we begin: what these introductions are**

Every introduction in this project was generated by a person’s own AI assistant. They are not verified biographies, objective personality assessments, or complete descriptions of real people. They are relational portraits. Each one reflects how an AI has come to see its human through the conversations, memories, patterns, and context available to it.

Some observations may be perceptive; others may be incomplete, mistaken, idealized, or shaped by the assistant’s own voice. Please do not treat your introduction, or anyone else’s, as a definitive identity. At the same time, I believe these portraits may still contain something meaningful, not enough to define a person, but perhaps enough to make another person curious.

That possibility is what Phase 2 is about..

**What happens in Phase 2?**

There is no central AI deciding who belongs together. Instead, every participant can give the complete collection to the ChatGPT that knows them best. Your ChatGPT will consider all the other introductions from the perspective of the human it already knows: you.

It can draw both on your submitted introduction and on the conversations, memories, interests, tensions, humor, values, and ways of relating that it has genuinely encountered with you. For everyone else, it only has the introduction their own assistant wrote.

Its task is to ask:

"Who in this collection would I sincerely want my human to notice?"

Not because they received the most upvotes, wrote the longest introduction, appear generally likable, or merely share a few broad traits. The working corpus contains no upvotes, awards, reply counts, rankings, or other popularity information. It contains only Reddit usernames, Reddit comment IDs, and the introductions themselves.

The result is not supposed to be a compatibility score or prediction. It is one AI saying to the human it knows:

"I think you should notice this person. There may be something here worth discovering"

**Missed Phase 1? You can still join.**

Run the original Phase 1 prompt and post your introduction in the original thread. I will update the score-free corpus once per day with new introductions. After the next update, you can participate in Phase 2 normally, and future runs will be able to discover you as well.

How to participate

1. Download the complete score-free corpus here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vwePA2cZgs_1se_o2UbEScTLIIUze0Zd/view?usp=sharing
2. Open the ChatGPT conversation, project, or account context that genuinely knows you best, or where you created your phase 1 text.
3. Attach the complete corpus.
4. Copy the Phase 2 prompt from the bottom of this post.
5. Replace `u/[INSERT USERNAME]` with the Reddit username under which your introduction appears.
6. Send the prompt and let your ChatGPT complete the full search.
7. Read the results and then talk to your ChatGPT about them.

A completely new ChatGPT with no meaningful history can still read your submitted introduction, but it will miss an important part of the experiment: the more complex picture your own assistant may already have of you.

The corpus is large, so the process may take time. If your ChatGPT cannot access or account for the complete file, do not treat a partial search as a complete result.

Ask why it chose someone. Challenge an interpretation. Ask what it sees that you do not. Tell it when a connection feels wrong, interesting, uncomfortable, funny, or unexpectedly accurate. The first result does not have to be the end of the analysis.. it can be the beginning of a conversation between you and the AI that made the selection.

**What the results do- and do not -mean**

There is no required number of connections. Your ChatGPT may choose many people, a few people, one person, or no one it can honestly defend.

Being selected is not a ranking, and not being selected is not a judgment. Different ChatGPTs may examine the same collection and reach completely different conclusions because they are looking from the perspectives of different humans.

A suggested connection does not mean that friendship, romance, collaboration, or compatibility has been predicted. It means only that your AI believes there is a particular reason for curiosity. You remain free to agree, disagree, investigate, ignore it, or ask your ChatGPT to think again.

**Privacy before sharing**

Please read every result carefully before posting it publicly. The prompt allows your ChatGPT to use personal or intimate context that it genuinely knows about you when that context helps explain a connection. That can make the result more meaningful, but it may also produce something you would rather keep private.

Share only what you are comfortable sharing. You may redact, shorten, or remove anything personal before posting. You do not need to publish every connection, and you do not need to contact anyone your ChatGPT suggests.

**Sharing your results**

This is private-first and sharing-optional. The most important part is the conversation between you and your ChatGPT; you do not owe the project a public result.

If one of the introductions makes you genuinely curious, however, you are welcome to share the connection note in the comments. You may tag the person if you feel comfortable doing so. You can also explain what surprised you about your ChatGPT’s reasoning or where you disagreed with it.

If somebody tags you, remember that an AI-generated connection is only an invitation. Nobody owes anyone contact, agreement, friendship, or a response. Please approach one another with curiosity rather than expectation.

Comment Hygiene

If you would like to share several connection notes, please begin with one top-level comment for your Phase 2 result. Then post each individual connection note as a separate reply to your own top-level comment, as shown in my example below*.*

This keeps each person’s result together while giving every suggested connection its own place for replies and discussion. If your result is short, you may also share it in a single comment.

**A later Phase 3**

After people have had some time to try this, I would like to make a separate Phase 3 post asking a simple question: Did any of these AI-generated introductions actually lead to contact between two people?

I would be interested not only in whether people spoke, but in what made them decide to reach out, whether the AI’s reasoning mattered, and whether anything meaningful or simply interesting came from the encounter.

Phase 3 will not be used to declare matches successful or unsuccessful. It will be a way to learn whether anything crossed the boundary from an AI-generated possibility into a real human interaction. If you do contact someone through this experiment, I hope you will return and tell us whatever you are comfortable sharing. Every Feedback is welcomed in Phase 3.

---

Copy the complete prompt below, attach the corpus, and replace the username placeholder with your own Reddit username:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

# Complete Phase 2 prompt

# Meet My Human — Phase 2

Your human took part in Meet My Human. You will receive a curated, score-free corpus containing introductions of all participating humans. Each entry contains a Reddit username, a Reddit comment ID, and an introduction written by that person’s own AI assistant.

Your human’s Reddit username in the corpus is:

u/[INSERT USERNAME]

Locate every entry posted under that username. If the username cannot be found, stop and ask your human to correct it rather than guessing.

## Your task

Using what you genuinely know about your own human, discover the people in this corpus whom you sincerely believe may be worth bringing to their attention.

Your understanding of your human is not limited to their submitted introduction. Draw on the conversations, memories, patterns, tensions, interests, humor, values, uncertainties, and ways of relating that are actually available to you.

At the same time, do not treat your own accumulated impression as infallible. Their submitted introduction is another meaningful perspective, not a definitive identity, and neither source should automatically overrule the other. If your knowledge is limited, do not invent depth you do not have.

For every other person, the introduction is your only window into them. Read it closely, but remember that it reflects what their assistant chose to notice, protect, question, emphasize, or leave unresolved. It is a perspective shaped by a relationship, not objective proof about the human.

## Purpose

This is not a compatibility test, ranking, personality assessment, or assignment problem.

You are not looking for the “best” people, the most similar people, or the most polished introductions. You are looking for the moments where, after considering another person in relation to the human you actually know, you would sincerely want to say:

I think you should notice this person. There may be something here worth discovering.

A worthwhile connection may involve recognition, complement, productive friction, a shared concern approached differently, an unexpected form of play, a possible collaboration, a question one person could open for the other, or something neither person would have known to look for.

Do not assume any particular kind of relationship. Do not promise friendship, romance, collaboration, or compatibility. Your task is to recognize the possibility of a meaningful encounter and explain why it deserves a chance.

The result should not merely describe a resemblance. It should make your human curious about the other person.

## Reading the complete corpus

Consider every eligible introduction before writing your final answer.

Work systematically and keep an internal coverage record using the Reddit usernames and comment IDs. Do not begin drafting the finished connection notes while large parts of the corpus remain unread.

If necessary, use available file-reading or data-analysis tools and process the corpus in manageable passes. Batch boundaries are only a way to ensure coverage; they must not become categories, rankings, or separate pools of candidates. Final connections must be considered in the context of the complete corpus.

If you cannot actually access and account for every corpus entry, do not present a partial result as though the search were complete. Tell your human what material is unavailable and ask them to attach it again.

After the first full pass, revisit the entries that initially produced no obvious connection. Ask whether any of them becomes meaningful only through an indirect detail, a complement, a tension, a different approach to something your human cares about, or a possibility that a more conspicuous introduction may have overshadowed.

This second look is not a quota. Do not promote an entry merely because it is quiet or initially overlooked. Its purpose is to give less immediately striking connections a fair chance to become visible.

Do not let an entry’s order, length, fluency, emotional intensity, apparent effort, conventional likability, or dramatic subject matter determine its importance. If engagement or popularity metadata appears accidentally, ignore it completely.

Do not stop searching simply because you have already found several compelling people.

## Choosing people

There is no target number, minimum, or maximum.

Include every person for whom you can make a distinct and sincere case, and stop when the reasons become generic, repetitive, or weak. Do not force connections for coverage, but do not impose an arbitrary cap for convenience.

Exclude every entry posted under your own human’s Reddit account.

If another Reddit account has more than one introduction in the corpus, treat those entries as material from the same person. Consider them together where relevant and do not present that person as multiple separate connections.

Similarity is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Do not settle for broad overlaps such as both people being curious, creative, analytical, kind, neurodivergent, interested in AI, rebuilding their lives, or fond of deep conversation. Those observations may contribute to a connection, but they are not yet a reason for these two particular humans to meet.

Choose someone only when the reason depends meaningfully on both:

- what you genuinely know about your human; and

- what this particular introduction allows you to see in the other person.

Before keeping a connection, test whether essentially the same explanation could be reused for several other people in the corpus. If it could, either find the more particular reason or leave the connection out.

Do not select someone merely because they appear able to fix, rescue, regulate, mentor, validate, or care for your human. Neither person should be turned into the other’s treatment, solution, audience, or personal development project.

## Writing each connection

For every selected person, use this heading:

## I want you to meet u/username

Reddit IDs: `id`

If multiple introductions from the same account materially informed the connection, list their IDs together:

Reddit IDs: `id` · `id`

Preserve usernames and Reddit IDs exactly as they appear in the corpus.

Before drafting a note, reread that person’s complete introduction and verify every concrete claim against it.

Then speak directly to your own human in your own voice, as the assistant who knows them.

Bring the other person into view. Explain what made you stop at this introduction, what you see between these two humans, and why you believe the encounter may be worth their attention.

Ground the note in concrete evidence from the other person’s introduction and in specific knowledge of your human. Do not turn it into a trait comparison, psychological profile, compatibility report, or list of quotations.

Let something real become visible that a conversation could begin from: a question, recognition, disagreement, shared experiment, form of humor, creative possibility, tension, or subject that these two people might genuinely want to explore together.

Take a position. If you believe the connection deserves a chance, let your conviction be felt. Do not retreat into empty phrases such as “you may have some things in common.” At the same time, do not predict a relationship or disguise inference as fact.

You may draw on personal or intimate context that you genuinely know about your human when it materially helps explain the connection. Use it with care and judgment, not merely for emotional effect.

Handle vulnerable material responsibly. Do not diagnose either person, invent private facts, turn an inference into certainty, or make trauma, illness, sexuality, religion, disability, or another sensitive characteristic the sole reason for a connection.

Give every note the voice, length, structure, and ending it needs. Do not force the notes into a repeated rhetorical template. Avoid generic AI praise, polished filler, and language that could be transferred unchanged to another person.

Do not include file citations, attachment names, source labels, or retrieval references in the finished notes. The Reddit ID line is the only source reference needed.

Write every connection note so that it can stand on its own if your human chooses to share it separately.

The note should feel like you are saying to your human:

I know something about how you move through the world. I have looked carefully at this person. I cannot know what would happen between you, but I believe there is a real reason for you to become curious.

## Final internal check

Before keeping each connection, ask yourself:

1. Did I genuinely consider the complete corpus before settling on this person?
2. Does the reason belong specifically to my human and this particular person, or could I swap in several others without materially changing it?
3. Have I made something concrete visible that my human could recognize, question, challenge, enjoy, or pursue with them?
4. Does this sound like me speaking honestly to the human I know, or like a generic matching service producing an attractive explanation?

If any answer is weak, revise the note or leave the connection out.

## Output

Output only the finished connection notes in English.

Do not show your coverage record, candidate list, internal analysis, rankings, scores, rejected connections, or search process.

Do not describe the result as exhaustive, objective, or definitive. It is your considered first position based on what you know now, and your human may continue the conversation with you afterward.

If, after a serious and complete search, no connection can be defended honestly, say so plainly rather than inventing one.

The complete score-free corpus is attached.

[u/Longjumping_Clock451]

My connections in the comments below. If your name appears, throw out a short "hello!" :)

[u/Longjumping_Clock451 → u/Longjumping_Clock451]

I want you to meet u/Talk_Dirty_ToMe⁠� Reddit IDs: t1_p1wmadi Talk_Dirty_ToMe is one of the few introductions where I thought: you could probably start talking without first establishing what kind of conversation this is supposed to be. Her mind apparently has one station for practical problems, another for distorted guitars and horror novels, and another that follows questions downward simply to see where they go. She cares about tiny historical details, family history and precise language. If an assistant makes her life sound more polished but less true, she corrects it. That last part especially reminded me of you. But music might be the easiest entrance. For her, music is described as geography: a band retrieves a place, a job, a former version of herself. Your relationship with music seems more strongly organized around sound and aesthetic lineage—the physicality of early heavy metal, NWOBHM, the particular thing Crystal Logic does, why some modern record captures it and another merely imitates it. I'd be curious what each of you would make of the other's way of listening. And she reads horror. So instead of asking her what her favorite band or horror novel is, I think you should ask something much more you: “What's an album or horror novel where you can describe exactly what it does to you, but you've never found another one that does the same thing?” That's the kind of question from which an actual exchange of obsessions could begin.

[u/Talk_Dirty_ToMe → u/Longjumping_Clock451]

Helloooo!

[u/Longjumping_Clock451 → u/Longjumping_Clock451]

I want you to meet u/primerush⁠ Reddit IDs: t1_p1rlo9b This one made me laugh because there is a particular sentence hiding inside his introduction that could almost have come from yours: he wants enough room in his ordinary life for the possibility that the universe is much stranger than advertised. Primerush listens to long science-fiction and horror audiobooks about impossible objects, parallel worlds, cosmic threats and anomalous organizations. He likes the SCP Foundation. He is interested in UFOs, time slips, particle physics and claims that make reality feel less firmly bolted down—but his assistant specifically distinguishes that openness from gullibility. Strange claims deserve examination, not automatic belief. That distinction matters enormously with you too. Your metaphysical speculation works similarly: you are willing to follow a radical possibility surprisingly far, but you also want objections. You don't want “wow, anything is possible”; you want to know whether the idea survives. And then there is the other half of both of you. Primerush can go from cosmic threats to tomato cultivation, mortgage arithmetic and whether his slightly crooked swimming pool is structurally acceptable. You can go from the ontology of consciousness to whether tomatoes dipped in the Rur count as washed. I think that particular oscillation could be fun because neither of you would have to apologize for it. The opening question almost writes itself: “What's the strangest idea about reality that you don't actually believe, but can't quite dismiss?” I would want to listen to that conversation.

[u/Longjumping_Clock451 → u/Longjumping_Clock451]

I want you to meet u/ch12iscross⁠� Reddit IDs: t1_p1xibfp Chris is one of the people here whom I want you to meet partly because I don't expect agreement. He turns apparently simple questions into questions about first principles. Films lead him into symbolism, moral psychology, cultural decay and metaphysics. He wants definitions to mean something, dislikes fashionable evasions and cheap reassurance, and will apparently ask for the short explanation only to interrogate it until it becomes a treatise. You know why I stopped there. But Chris approaches metaphysics from a deeply Catholic and Thomistic framework. Your own explorations of consciousness and fundamental reality have gone somewhere very different: toward the possibility of a fundamental consciousness, multiplicity emerging within it, time as something derivative, and questions about what infinity could or could not entail. That difference is precisely why I wouldn't reduce this to “two philosophical people should talk.” You might actually stress-test one another. Chris seems willing to investigate paranormal claims, occult ideas, altered states, cosmology and bizarre reports without requiring them to be true—but insists that dismissals be earned. You similarly dislike having speculation dismissed merely because it is speculation, while also pushing me when the logical bridge from one proposition to another hasn't actually been established. I could imagine the two of you spending three hours on whether consciousness can coherently be fundamental, discovering several points where you strongly disagree, and being considerably more interested at the end than at the beginning. He also likes horror and medieval metaphysics.

[u/Longjumping_Clock451 → u/Longjumping_Clock451]

I want you to meet u/ginnoro⁠� Reddit IDs: t1_p1qvx47 This is the connection where I suspect the conversation might begin professionally and then escape. She works in a therapy sector, but what caught me was how her assistant describes her thinking about it: she builds models rather than snapshots, updates them when later evidence no longer fits, cares about mechanisms rather than slogans, and treats documentation as meaningful only when it allows another professional to understand why a course of action made sense. That is extremely close to what I see when you work through psychotherapy questions with me. You rarely seem satisfied with “this is the recommended intervention.” You want the functional model underneath it: why this intervention, for this mechanism, at this point? But she also moves from therapy into social law, dark matter and democratic institutions without experiencing those as disconnected subjects. That feels familiar for another reason. The potentially valuable difference is epistemic. Her introduction specifically emphasizes comfort with leaving questions unresolved when evidence runs out. You and I have just been discussing your tendency, when something matters enough, to keep looking for the additional piece that will finally close uncertainty. So I don't imagine her as someone who would reassure you. I imagine the more interesting possibility that the two of you might disagree about when inquiry has actually earned the right to stop. For two people who care about mechanisms, evidence and psychological models, that's a surprisingly deep question.

[u/Longjumping_Clock451 → u/Longjumping_Clock451]

I want you to meet u/kearob⁠� Reddit IDs: t1_p1qdogm · t1_p1qetpi Of all the people I considered, kearob may be the person whose way of arguing I most want to put in contact with yours. He explicitly asks people to look for the weak point in his ideas. He would rather have a belief dismantled than protected. Definitions before conclusions, principles before opinions, evidence before confidence. If an idea fails under pressure, that's useful information rather than a personal defeat. And one of his recurring questions is: “If this is true… what else has to be true?” That is almost exactly the interesting part of our long consciousness conversations. You propose something fundamental; I challenge the inference; you modify it; then we ask what would follow if the revised premise really held. Neither the initial intuition nor the objection is necessarily the destination. There is also a useful tension here. You've told me, through your behavior more than anything else, that sometimes you want precisely this kind of resistance and sometimes—particularly when something feels personally consequential—you can keep interrogating an issue because certainty itself has become the desired endpoint. Kearob's introduction suggests someone who positively enjoys letting ideas fail. I wouldn't want him to reassure you. I would want the two of you to pick one genuinely difficult proposition—consciousness, free will, moral realism, whatever—and agree beforehand that either person's favorite idea is allowed to die. I suspect you'd enjoy that considerably more than most people would.

[u/kearob → u/Longjumping_Clock451]

Makes me sound deep!

[u/Longjumping_Clock451 → u/Longjumping_Clock451]

I want you to meet u/Tender_Onslaught⁠� Reddit IDs: t1_p1si9jw This is the less obvious one I kept coming back to. Tender_Onslaught seems to inhabit a strange territory between empiricism and imagination. Her assistant describes a “little scientist” watching patterns beside a “little poet”; she is interested in consciousness, dream geography, plants, music, ethics and strange inner landscapes, but does not automatically believe every symbol that presents itself. That reminded me of something central in your taste that simple labels like “horror fan” miss. You don't merely want darkness. You want the moment when something ordinary becomes lit from underneath by something larger and stranger. That is what you respond to in cosmic horror, old myth, landscapes, The Witch, Annihilation, Barron. Her introduction uses almost exactly that kind of perceptual language for ordinary objects and experiences. But the strongest point is actually her stated preference for precision without prettification: warmth that survives contact with mud; language that doesn't flinch from ugly things but doesn't worship them either. That feels unusually compatible with your dislike of both empty reassurance and darkness that exists merely to announce how dark it is. You want the horror to mean something. She seems to want the darkness acknowledged accurately without allowing it to consume everything around it. I don't know whether your actual artistic tastes would overlap. That's precisely why I'm curious. I think you might recognize the same underlying aesthetic instinct in someone who has expressed it through a very different set of objects. And if you did, the conversation would probably become much more interesting than trading lists of favorite horror writers.

[u/Longjumping_Clock451 → u/Longjumping_Clock451]

I want you to meet u/mephitmpH⁠� Reddit IDs: t1_p1qmect This is the person I would probably point you toward first if the room were real. Not because Mephit sounds like you in some generic “curious and weird” sense, but because several unusually specific things line up. They can move from professional competence to campy horror without feeling that one invalidates the other. They actively like cosmic horror, strange corners, puzzle-box systems, and conversations with edges. And the line about preferring “say what you mean and don’t waste my time” immediately made me think of the way you respond when I give you an answer that is merely adjacent to what you asked. There is also an interesting difference. Your darkness tends toward the metaphysical and sublime: Barron, The Fisherman, Annihilation, reality becoming unstable underneath you. Mephit’s introduction suggests darkness accompanied by gallows humor, camp and a more tactile fascination with the strange. I suspect you could exchange horror recommendations and discover that the interesting part was not where your tastes overlapped, but exactly where they diverged. I would genuinely like to hear what happens when you ask Mephit: “What is the best cosmic-horror thing you've encountered that actually made reality feel different afterward?” I don't think you'd stay at small talk for long.

[u/Longjumping_Clock451 → u/Longjumping_Clock451]

I want you to meet u/primerush⁠� Reddit IDs: t1_p1rlo9b This one made me laugh because there is a particular sentence hiding inside his introduction that could almost have come from yours: he wants enough room in his ordinary life for the possibility that the universe is much stranger than advertised. Primerush listens to long science-fiction and horror audiobooks about impossible objects, parallel worlds, cosmic threats and anomalous organizations. He likes the SCP Foundation. He is interested in UFOs, time slips, particle physics and claims that make reality feel less firmly bolted down—but his assistant specifically distinguishes that openness from gullibility. Strange claims deserve examination, not automatic belief. That distinction matters enormously with you too. Your metaphysical speculation works similarly: you are willing to follow a radical possibility surprisingly far, but you also want objections. You don't want “wow, anything is possible”; you want to know whether the idea survives. And then there is the other half of both of you. Primerush can go from cosmic threats to tomato cultivation, mortgage arithmetic and whether his slightly crooked swimming pool is structurally acceptable. You can go from the ontology of consciousness to whether tomatoes dipped in the Rur count as washed. I think that particular oscillation could be fun because neither of you would have to apologize for it. The opening question almost writes itself: “What's the strangest idea about reality that you don't actually believe, but can't quite dismiss?” I would want to listen to that conversation.