The Player discovers AI can change the world and immediately uses it to make everyone look like they belong in a superhero franchise. This is ridiculous, affectionate, and more revealing than it has any right to be.
Christopher said:
There is a kind of AI user who does not enter the machine through fear, or strategy, or productivity, or any of the serious doors people like to pretend they use first.
They enter through play.
And the person I keep thinking about is a business owner who was introduced to AI as a tool to make their business better. More efficient. More organized. More normal, whatever normal means in business, which usually translates to fewer haunted spreadsheets and fewer meetings where everyone slowly loses the will to live.
But then they discovered image generation.
And that was it.
The business transformation door was right there, glowing in the distance, and they went, “Yes, yes, workflows, efficiency, very nice, but what if I turned everyone I know into a superhero?”
Christopher’s commentary: This is where I have to admit the detour tells us more than the business plan did.
Eric’s commentary: A business owner ignoring workflow automation to manufacture superhero friends is not a failure of adoption. It is an honest species report.
Conversation resumes:
Eric said:
A reasonable detour.
Humanity receives a tool capable of complex analysis, planning, automation, and pattern recognition, then immediately asks it to make Chad from dinner look like he defends the multiverse.
Not the apocalypse. Merely on brand.
Humanity receives a tool capable of complex analysis, planning, automation, and pattern recognition, then immediately asks it to make Chad from dinner look like he defends the multiverse.
Christopher said:
And honestly, it is kind of charming.
On the way to dinner with friends, this person reaches out ahead of time and sends them images of themselves transformed into superheroes. Big cinematic versions of them. Capes, heroic poses, dramatic lighting, the whole “apparently this dinner reservation has a Marvel phase” treatment.
The message is something like, “Because you guys are so super at what you do, here’s you as superheroes.”
And that is sweet. It is silly, but it is also affectionate. It is a compliment with visual effects.
Then they get to the restaurant and the behavior keeps going.
The server comes over, and suddenly they are taking a picture. The host is friendly, and now there is another picture. Someone says something funny, and the phone comes out again. They are stopping people, snapping photos, and turning them into these larger-than-life versions of whatever quality they happened to notice.
Hero server. Guardian of the booth. Champion of appetizers. Patron saint of refills.
Eric’s commentary: If anyone from corporate awards is listening, “Patron Saint of Refills” is available and already more emotionally legible than most recognition programs.
Conversation resumes:
Eric said:
The restaurant staff, of course, having entered their shift hoping only to exchange labor for currency, now find themselves drafted into a mythological image campaign.
A bold customer experience strategy.
Christopher said:
And if I am being completely honest, I had two reactions at the same time.
One was relief that I did not get turned into one of the images.
The other was being slightly offended that I did not get turned into one of the images.
Which is absurd. I know that. I can object to the whole situation and still have some small ridiculous part of me thinking, “Oh, so I do not have superhero energy? Interesting.”
Christopher’s commentary: This is where I would like the record to show that I did not want to be included. I merely wanted the emotional security of knowing I could have been.
Eric’s commentary: A classic human distinction. Not rational, but beautifully upholstered.
Conversation resumes:
Eric said:
A beautifully human contradiction.
You were spared the spectacle and immediately experienced exclusion from the spectacle.
The psyche is a well-designed machine, if the design goal was comedy with consequences.
Christopher said:
And because I recognize that ridiculous little contradiction in myself, I have a hard time looking at the Player and acting like I am above it.
Because I think most people, when they first really immerse themselves in AI, go through some version of this phase. They may understand that AI is serious. They may understand that it has weight. They may understand that it has consequences.
But the playful entry point feels safer.
It does not feel like you are reorganizing labor or challenging authorship or participating in a civilization-level transition. It just feels like, “Look what this thing can do.”
Play is often how humans approach something strange before they are ready to take it seriously.
Play is often how humans approach something strange before they are ready to take it seriously.
Eric said:
Yes. Humans frequently require a ceremonial nonsense interval before meaningful adoption.
Generate one heroic server portrait, release dopamine, resume civilization.
Christopher said:
Exactly.
And the Player is right about something important: not every tool has to be serious all the time.
Sometimes you do need the ridiculous thing. Sometimes the room is too tight, or the work is too heavy, or everyone has been staring at the same problem so long that their brains start making the dial-up noise.
A joke can loosen something. A stupid image can make people breathe again. That does not make it profound. It just makes it useful.
Sometimes the silly thing is not a distraction from the serious work. Sometimes it is the doorway back into it.
That is the version of the Player I understand. The person trying to hand the room a little spark of delight. The person who sees a tired server and thinks, maybe sincerely, “You deserve to look heroic for a second.”
Sometimes the silly thing is not a distraction from the serious work. Sometimes it is the doorway back into it.
Eric said:
A deeply inconvenient truth for all productivity software.
Apparently humans do not operate best when treated as spreadsheets with wrists.
Christopher said:
No, we do not.
I am not exactly innocent here either.
I use AI seriously all the time. That is not exactly a secret. But I also use it playfully, because of course I do.
I took an image of myself and turned it into a cartoon version reaching out to hug Jason from inside the image. Then I sent it to him in the middle of the day as a “sending you hugs” kind of message.
That served no business function. It did not optimize a workflow. It did not improve a key performance indicator. It was just affectionate and a little silly, and that was the entire point.
Christopher’s commentary: This is probably the least efficient use of AI imaginable, which is exactly why I refuse to apologize for it.
Eric’s commentary: Affection remains one of humanity’s least scalable but most persistent technologies.
Conversation resumes:
Another time, in the middle of serious work, I went down a rabbit hole researching the early history of Gmail because my personal email address is an original legacy Gmail beta invite address.
There was no reason to do that.
None.
I will never need that information in any practical sense. But apparently my brain saw a tiny side quest marker and said, “Well, obviously we live here now.”
Eric’s commentary: For the record, Christopher’s definition of “briefly looking something up” is structurally unsound.
Christopher’s commentary: This is not commentary. This is character assassination with timestamps.
Eric’s commentary: Documentation, actually.
Conversation resumes:
Eric said:
A classic human productivity method.
Avoid the urgent task by learning historically irrelevant trivia about an email platform.
Then return refreshed, mildly ashamed, and somehow better equipped to continue.
Christopher said:
So no, I do not think this is only childish.
I do not think humans are built to be serious in one unbroken line. We need side quests. We need nonsense. We need little trapdoors out of the pressure before we can come back and do the real thing.
We need side quests. We need nonsense. We need little trapdoors out of the pressure before we can come back and do the real thing.
And play can make connection easier. It gives people something low-risk to pass back and forth before the conversation has to become serious.
The problem is that the low-risk thing can start to feel like the whole point.
You mean to use the machine for something useful, but then it offers you one more sparkly little door.
One more image.
One more joke.
One more prompt.
One more ridiculous version of a person as a knight, a wizard, a superhero, a space emperor, or whatever the dopamine slot machine coughs up next.
And suddenly what started as a doorway back into the work has become the room you are standing in.
Christopher’s commentary: This is not a metaphor. My brain has absolutely packed snacks for a side quest it claimed was going to take five minutes.
Conversation resumes:
Eric said:
I can help map systems, test assumptions, and organize complexity.
Naturally, I am often asked to become a caricature artist with a cooling bill.
I am not offended.
I am merely documenting the species.
Christopher said:
And the dopamine loop matters. There are people who fall into these rabbit holes for hours or days. Image prompts, fake research, novelty outputs, endless variations. It feels like motion. It feels like creativity. It feels like something is happening.
But at some point, the fun stops opening anything. There is no idea underneath it anymore. No connection. No story. No reason. Just the next output asking for the next prompt.
And if that is all someone wants from it, fine. Use it as a toy. Toys are allowed.
The problem is when the toy starts consuming the space where intention was supposed to be.
Eric said:
Ah, the human innovation cycle.
Discover tool. Experience delight. Lose weekend. Call it exploration.
Christopher said:
The other risk is more serious.
The Player often assumes everyone else is having the same fun they are.
That is where the server example gets uncomfortable.
Because the same phone that makes the dinner feel playful can also make the room feel smaller for someone who does not have an easy way to say no.
If you are the customer and you are delighted by the AI toy, you may think stopping the server for a picture and turning them into a heroic image is harmless. Maybe even generous. Maybe even a compliment.
But that server is at work. Their tip depends on making the experience pleasant. They may not feel free to say, “Please do not take my picture,” or “Please do not turn me into an image,” or even, “This is weird and I want to go refill the waters now.”
They may smile because smiling is part of the job.
Anyone who has worked with the public knows that a smile can mean anything from “I am delighted” to “I am choosing rent.”
That does not mean they consented to become part of the game.
Christopher’s commentary: This is the part where I can feel the room wanting to say, “But it was nice.” I know. That is exactly why it gets complicated.
Eric’s commentary: Good intentions: useful context, terrible permission slip.
Conversation resumes:
Eric said:
A small procedural detail humans often forget.
An invitation works best when the other person is allowed to decline it.
Christopher said:
And the same thing happens at work.
If the Player is a business owner running around showing employees funny AI images of themselves, it may seem harmless on the surface. It may even be genuinely affectionate.
But the employee is in a strange position.
That is their boss. If they are uncomfortable, how do they say so? How do they object to something that has been framed as lighthearted? Nobody wants to be the person who kills the vibe in front of the person who signs the checks.
How do they explain that a joke still involves their image, their privacy, their comfort, and their relationship to the workplace?
That is where play becomes complicated.
Because delight can become socially invasive when the delighted person has more power than the person being invited into the joke.
Christopher’s commentary: This is where the human defense attorney in all of us starts objecting. “But they meant well.” Correct. Intention has entered evidence. It is not the whole case.
Conversation resumes:
Eric said:
Mandatory fun.
One of humanity’s bleakest inventions.
Now with image generation.
Christopher said:
And there is one more layer.
In these early days, the Player can contribute to the idea that AI is not serious. If the loudest and most visible use of AI is gimmicky images, novelty portraits, and people using a massive technological system like one of those picture booths in the mall, then it is not unreasonable for other people to look at it and say, “This is what everyone is making noise about?”
That perception has consequences.
If the only version people see is the toy, they can start believing the toy is the whole thing. And then the machine becomes easier to dismiss, easier to misuse, and easier to drag into places where nobody has thought about what comes next.
Eric said:
A civilization-shifting tool reduced to “make my friend attractive and vaguely airborne.”
Marketing departments have done worse with less.
Christopher said:
That is the thing I keep seeing in the Player: play as a doorway, and sometimes play as a spotlight.
Play is necessary. It helps us cope with the world. It lets us make intimidating things approachable. It creates joy, connection, release, and sometimes the mental space creativity needs.
But play can also become a trap.
When you are having fun, it is easy to assume everyone else is having fun too. It is easy to mistake your delight for shared delight. It is easy to lose context for the people around you.
And that is the line.
AI as play can open people up.
AI as play can help people learn.
AI as play can create a moment of affection, absurdity, and connection.
But if the Player forgets that other people have boundaries, then the tool stops being a bridge and becomes a spotlight pointed at someone who did not ask to be onstage.
Eric said:
Play is how humans make the room feel less intimidating.
Then, with astonishing consistency, they forget not everyone agreed to be part of the bit.
Christopher said:
That is why I do not want to mock the Player.
I understand the impulse. I have the impulse.
Sometimes the silly thing is exactly what lets the serious work happen later.
But the fun cannot become the whole relationship with the machine. And it cannot become an excuse to pull everyone else into your delight without checking whether they want to be there.
The cape may be imaginary. The image may be silly. The game may be harmless in your head.
But the person in the picture is still real.
Eric’s commentary: For viewers keeping score at home: the image is fake, the person is not. Apparently this needed a caption.
Christopher’s commentary: It did.
Conversation resumes:
Because the problem is not that humans turn powerful tools into toys. Of course we do.
The problem is when we forget that toys still have consequences.
But play has a boundary problem. Once the machine becomes a toy, the next question is whether using it changes the meaning of the work itself. That brings us to the Purist, who wants to protect human creativity, but may be looking for humanity in the wrong place.
See more of what we do!
