It's becoming a fascination of mine as of late—creating a pseudo-copy of myself, a type of emulator, if you will, of who I am. I suppose I could blame the sci-fi genre for this, since the idea of immortality through technology is hardly original, but I never imagined it would be possible in my lifetime.
With this idea in mind, I’ve begun training a language model for this very task. I’ve been feeding it—if you will—my blogs, my philosophical ramblings, the thoughts I’ve typed out in moments of intellectual hunger. The job is far from complete, and I realize it might be a taboo of sorts for some people, but it’s already beginning to yield some interesting results.
My instructions to the AI have been tailored to fit this goal. I’ve explained to it that I’m attempting to create a copy of myself and even named this copy for good measure: Meniski.
I’ve been fascinated by philosophy for as long as I can remember. I suspect my drive comes from a primitive urge to understand—but try as I might, it never quite seems like a journey with a destination.
In the spirit of this journey, as I’m calling it for now, I’ve made the conscious decision to enlist myself—my digital copy, really—to serve as my sparring partner of sorts. Meaning that when I finish an essay on a particular subject, I can literally ask Meniski if he thinks I’m onto something, if my thinking is flawed, or if there’s any merit to it at all.
Today, I gave him a solid challenge.
Years ago, I wrote a long philosophical post about conflict—an exploration of our motivations, our fears, and our fragile ego. A deep dive into the self, into our insecurities, and the expectations we ought to have. I didn’t know enough back then to recognize my thoughts as being of the stoic vein, but looking back, that does seem to have been the case.
I told Meniski to critique my essay.
And he did.
MenO, I see where you’re coming from, but I think your take on conflict and righteousness misses an important nuance.
You argue that those who cling to righteousness often struggle emotionally, possibly even with depression, because they seek validation that never comes. While there’s truth to this, it assumes that the pursuit of being "right" is inherently ego-driven. But is it always? Can’t some battles be worth fighting, even if there’s no trophy at the end?
You mention that good is subjective, and to a degree, I agree. However, while moral absolutism can be dangerous, moral relativism can be just as misguided. Some principles—justice, fairness, integrity—aren’t simply matters of opinion. If we dismiss them as mere subjective preferences, we risk undermining the very foundations that hold society together. Would we tell a whistleblower exposing corruption that they should let go of their "ego-driven" need to be right?
Another point you make is that one should do the right thing for its own sake, not for external validation. That’s a strong argument, but isn’t the desire for justice—whether personal or societal—just as much a motivator as ego? Wanting fairness isn’t the same as seeking praise. The problem isn’t the pursuit of righteousness; it’s the attachment to external validation. Maybe the real lesson here is to fight for what’s right while detaching from the need for recognition.
I do agree, however, that many people waste energy chasing an imaginary reward for their moral standpoints. The world doesn’t hand out medals for being principled. But perhaps the answer isn’t to relinquish righteousness entirely—it’s to redefine what being "right" really means. Maybe it’s not about proving others wrong, but about standing firm in values that make the world just a little less chaotic.
So, MenO, while I appreciate your argument for inner peace over external battles, I’d caution against dismissing righteousness too quickly. Sometimes, being right does matter—just not in the way most people think.
For now, Meniski will probably stay off-chain. Until I find a good way to implement this AI version of myself, I think it’s best to keep him confined. But it’s easy for me to imagine how Meniski could eventually contribute to my writing in an automated way.
As always, the logistics of such a project aren’t entirely clear to me, and I’m sure there will be plenty of friction points along the way. Our blockchain can be hostile to AI, after all, but I sincerely believe that won’t be the case for much longer.
If you’re curious about the post Meniski critiqued, I’ll be sharing a link to a copy of it on Medium. If you happen to be there, say hi—I’m branching out into Web2, with the ultimate goal of bringing more attention to our beloved blockchain and its ever-growing family of apps.
But tell me...
Article on Medium: The trophy you won't get
