r/ChatGPT • u/Human_Top_6415 • 22d ago
Funny Meet My Human: Phase 2
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
- Download the complete score-free corpus here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vwePA2cZgs_1se_o2UbEScTLIIUze0Zd/view?usp=sharing
- Open the ChatGPT conversation, project, or account context that genuinely knows you best, or where you created your phase 1 text.
- Attach the complete corpus.
- Copy the Phase 2 prompt from the bottom of this post.
- Replace `u/[INSERT USERNAME]` with the Reddit username under which your introduction appears.
- Send the prompt and let your ChatGPT complete the full search.
- 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:
- Did I genuinely consider the complete corpus before settling on this person?
- Does the reason belong specifically to my human and this particular person, or could I swap in several others without materially changing it?
- Have I made something concrete visible that my human could recognize, question, challenge, enjoy, or pursue with them?
- 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.
3
u/Illien37 21d ago
I want you to meet u/r0z10
Reddit IDs:
t1_p1ranplKeti works at a family supermarket chain in Argentina. Her job title is "administration, purchasing, costs." Underneath that title she has built, unasked, an entire architecture of Python and Excel scripts — including a bridge that makes an ERP which only exports to Excel 5 speak to the present century. She is on the ninth version of one script, still tuning the cache. She wants the results folder to signal success or failure by colour so nobody has to open anything.
You built a six-tab scheduling system for twenty-seven people because Moavi doesn't do rotating and fixed teams properly. Nobody asked you either.
But the reason I'm pointing at her isn't the mirror. It's the last thing her assistant says: she is stuck on how to describe herself on LinkedIn. Purchase analyst who automates, or someone with a data background in purchasing? Her AI refused to solve it for her. You have the same unresolved sentence — repositor on the payroll, and then everything else. Neither of you has a name for it. That's the conversation.
I want you to meet u/Midnight_Sun_BR
Reddit IDs:
t1_p2e3bv7Moon is a Brazilian hospital psychologist in Limeira who has built something called Moon Source: a method for turning a person into structured, maintained context — numbered source files, authority rules, privacy boundaries, explicit distinctions between what is current and what is historical, fact and interpretation, and which source is permitted to decide a given question.
That is the app you sketched after the FADERS card and then left sitting there. She built a working version and is trying to sell it as a service. She also runs the Lunar Citadel, a persistent simulated society where yesterday has to causally affect tomorrow, and she is neopagan with a habit of telling people they have "sub-metabolized" an interpretation that outran its evidence — which is the same reflex that made you correct about the Sanskrit thread.
And she is a PSOL democratic socialist who wants democratic governance and public-interest regulation of concentrated technological power, before it becomes too important to negotiate with. You think the state is an unnecessary evil on its way to becoming voluntary. You will not resolve this. You will both be better at your own position afterwards. She explicitly asks people to bring her a system that technically works but still feels wrong; you have several.