Can a Computer Help Us Become More Human?
What an ordinary work email made me consider about AI, right speech and the people we become through conversation.
James Hague
10/10/20264 min read
I have had a slightly strange thought several times while working with AI: a computer appears to be helping me become more human.
I use it extensively in my hospitality work. What interests me more lately is what happens to me during those conversations.
Recently, I was annoyed with someone over a business matter. I felt their response showed poor judgment and too little willingness to collaborate.
I talked it through with AI and started shaping a reply. The language I would naturally have used carried more of that frustration than I had recognised. The suggested alternative approached the issue more constructively and gave me another way to look at the exchange.
Reading it, I actually felt different. I felt lighter, happier, even more joyful. I could still address what concerned me, and I could imagine doing so with more generosity towards the person receiving it.
That change happened before the message went out. The wording became my communication, but the conversation had already influenced the intention behind it.
I went in looking for help with an email and came away slightly easier to get along with. An unexpected feature, perhaps.
The intention behind the words
As a Buddhist practitioner, I find this fascinating. A question I return to in considering right speech is whether something is true, beneficial and offered at the right time. The Buddha’s discussion with Prince Abhaya explicitly makes room for truthful, beneficial speech that someone may find unpleasant, while emphasising the judgment involved in choosing when to say it. MN 58
There is room here for a firm response, an uncomfortable question or a necessary boundary. I want help communicating those things well. Making a message pleasant at the expense of its truth or purpose would miss what matters to me.
Intention is central to the Buddhist understanding of karma. In the Nibbedhika Sutta, the Buddha identifies intention as kamma and describes intentional action through body, speech and mind. AN 6.63
That gives me a useful way to reflect on this experience. I began with irritation. Through conversation, I considered a wider perspective and found language that allowed a more constructive intention to emerge. I chose to adopt it, and that choice shaped what I put into the relationship.
What happens when we do this repeatedly?
One email is a modest example. Yet much of our working life is made up of modest examples: replying to a colleague, questioning a supplier, giving feedback or responding to a disappointed guest.
Communication takes skill. We have different levels of education, confidence and experience in expressing ourselves, particularly when something matters to us. Being able to explain a situation conversationally and explore several ways of responding makes that skill more accessible.
I wonder what happens when we do this over months or years. If I repeatedly consider another perspective, recognise an unnecessary edge in my language and choose a more useful response, might some of that become more familiar to me?
I cannot honestly say how much of this has carried into my conversations away from the screen. I would attribute much of my effort to pause and be mindful to my Buddhist practice. But I can describe what happened in that particular exchange, and it raises a worthwhile question about the habits we may be developing.
An AI-assisted sentence can enter a real relationship. The person receiving it responds, and we make another choice. Over time, those choices could influence both the relationship and our own expectations about how to engage with people.
Who benefits when I say thank you?
Sometimes I thank the AI when something has worked particularly well. It is often intuitive, much as gratitude arises when I receive useful help elsewhere.
That leaves me with another interesting question. Whatever we ultimately learn about AI and inner experience, what does my manner of speaking practise in me?
I can be direct and efficient. I can also notice appreciation when it arises. Equally, I wonder what I might be rehearsing if I repeatedly approach a conversational system with contempt or aggression simply because I think the recipient does not matter.
Whether those habits transfer to human relationships deserves careful investigation. Meanwhile, it seems worth noticing the state of mind I bring to an interaction with a machine.
The influence deserves scrutiny
The same possibility that makes me hopeful also calls for caution. A system that helps us frame a situation can influence which possibilities we consider. It might broaden our understanding, or it might reinforce our assumptions and make our existing position sound unusually reasonable.
Pleasant, articulate language can carry poor judgment. A polished reply can still be unfair.
As these tools become part of more decisions and relationships, questions about their design and influence matter. Whose assumptions appear in the advice? Does the system challenge me when necessary? Am I considering its suggestion, or accepting it because it sounds confident?
I remain responsible for the words I choose to send. I want AI to help me examine a response, including the possibility that I have misunderstood someone. That requires a willingness on my part to hear something less flattering than agreement.
An everyday possibility for hospitality
In hospitality, we spend our days navigating human expectations. A guest is disappointed, a team member needs guidance, an owner wants an explanation. Our words affect whether those moments leave room for understanding and repair.
We can use AI to explore those conversations, ask what we may have overlooked and find language that keeps both the concern and the person in view.
I hear extraordinary ambitions for AI in science and medicine. I also think its influence on everyday human relationships deserves serious attention. Helping someone express a difficult truth with care is a small contribution with a very real person on the receiving end.
Better communication alone is a limited claim, well short of spiritual awakening. My Buddhist practice asks much more of me. Even so, becoming a little more understanding, a little more constructive and a little more generous in an ordinary interaction seems worth valuing.
The question I keep returning to is how I use the conversation. If I come away able to see another person more clearly and choose my next words with greater care, something worthwhile has happened. I find it remarkable that a conversation with a computer can help make that possible.