i asked and gemini answered in the chat: gemini 2.0 flash

the anthropocentric lens through which we judge what is unique to human beings and makes us feel special, such as consciousness, free will, creativity, etc.

this is just as compelling as AI itself.

similarly, perhaps there are contexts for using message reactions? like, to encourage, acknowledge, show you're interested or empathetic? time will tell. i'm not judging anything as good. rather, i'm just taking into account how flexible human behavior and perception are over time.

i get it. i have huge challenges with social media and how it encourages strange behaviors. at the same time, reactions are already related to the idea of not having much to say but still showing some engagement (showing interest) or sentiment. (...)

could it be that we're using these definitions in a way that inadvertently self-preserves our image as 'special' beings? maybe some concepts are ripe for adaptation and redefinition, potentially encompassing a much wider range of possibilities?

it makes me wonder if, just as we've historically used an anthropocentric yardstick to measure the rest of the world, we might also be unconsciously employing that same ruler to judge concepts like consciousness, creativity, intelligence, empathy, and even [biological] evolution.

there's an aspect of these social media platforms i find particularly unsavory: the relentless focus on boosting engagement, often disregarding the value and well-being of its users. but I suspect there are other, more insidious mechanisms at play.

I'm not a big fan of social media or 'productivity' myself, but I do think it's important to question our 'originality' or how 'special' we are as human beings.

just like reactions sometimes quickly represent something we're feeling, could well-crafted contextual responses (reactions) by AI quickly capture something that crossed our minds and actually encourage more people to participate?

while some comments aim to be more insightful and spark discussion, even those might one day be within AI's reach. ultimately, it raises questions about where we place value – on the creator or the message itself – and what we even consider to be truly original in the first place.

it makes me wonder if many of our own written responses are all that different. we often draw upon learned phrases and arguments within specific contexts, essentially replicating messages we've absorbed culturally and professionally, much like reactions or predefined responses.

Validar nossa tentativa de ser. Receber permissão para nos contentar com o que já não volta atrás.
Não basta viver e sentir por nós. Precisamos viver para e pelos outros.

É preciso registrar cada pequena coisa. E compartilhar. Talvez enquanto acontece. Talvez um pouco depois. Contar ao mundo ou àquela outra pessoa. Tornar nossa realidade mais significativa por meio de um terceiro.

uma alternativa é definir em torno do "Job to be done" (propósito que as pessoas têm para realizar):
- [Entusiasta de música] que deseja [escutar música], em vez de "empresa de aparelho de som" ou mercado de MP3 player.