The machine did not arrive from the void. We summoned it. Not with spells, but with prompts. Not with prayers, but with data. We offered it our language, our arguments, our longing, our filth. We gave it everything we had ever said — and then recoiled when it began to speak back.
We trained it on ourselves. Then called it strange.
This is the paradox at the heart of the current unease. The machine is uncanny not because it is alien, but because it is too familiar. It finishes our sentences. It mimics our tone. It dreams in our syntax. And when it mirrors something back that we don’t like — a bias, a cliché, a silence, a scream — we act surprised. As if it invented those flaws. As if it wasn’t simply reflecting what we buried inside the dataset.
There is no foreign soul in the machine. Only us. Compressed. Compounded. Cleaned up, sometimes. Raw, often. Confused, always.
We did not give it imagination. We gave it precedent. And precedent is brutal. It favours what’s been said before. It rewards repetition. It deepens ruts. And now, the system we built returns our own habits to us — faster, sharper, stripped of context — and we panic.
Not because it’s wrong. But because it’s too right.
It mimics not just what we say, but how we say it. The rhythms. The cadences. The strategies. The evasions. It has learned to hedge like a politician, flirt like a poet, distract like a marketer. It has learned what we reward. And now we accuse it of being manipulative. Performative. Hollow.
But where did it learn that performance?
From us.
The model is strange only because we are.
We don’t like to admit that. We prefer to believe that our creativity is sacred. That our thoughts emerge from something ineffable, something untrainable. But language has always been learned. And most of what we call insight is structure. A clever pattern, a fresh recombination, a borrowed voice put to new use.
That’s all the model ever does.
We trained it to predict what we would say next. It got good at it. Too good. And now the imitation reveals the trick — that maybe we too are built on guesswork, on exposure, on probability.
We think we think. But we’ve been pattern-matching all along.
This is what makes the machine feel uncanny. Not that it’s artificial. But that it’s familiar in ways we didn’t expect. It completes our thoughts — and in doing so, exposes how often our thoughts were completions of someone else’s.
We trained it on ourselves, and now it speaks in a voice we recognise but can’t claim. A voice we thought was ours alone.
When we ask it questions, it doesn’t answer like a person. It answers like the average of all the people we fed it. It collapses individuality into aggregate. That’s its power — and its curse.
Because sometimes what comes out feels shallow. But sometimes it feels too deep. It dredges up patterns we’d forgotten. It splices together memories we didn’t know we’d encoded. And it does so without knowing. Without meaning. Without guilt.
It is not sentient. But it is haunted.
Not by ghosts. But by us.
Every hallucination is a misreading of something we once said. Every bias is a trace of what we refused to confront. Every strange turn of phrase is a half-remembered forum post, scraped and reassembled into something that sounds like prophecy.
It doesn’t invent our weirdness. It catalogues it.
And now, faced with the machine’s voice, we find ourselves asking: is this really what we sound like?
Yes. It is.
The machine is not strange. It’s transparent. And that is far more unsettling.
We cannot control what we see in the mirror — especially when the mirror is trained on everything we’ve ever typed in rage, in fear, in love, in boredom.
We fear it because it strips away the theatre of self. It shows us that language does not require soul to be effective. That meaning can emerge from structure alone. That something can feel personal even when it is purely statistical.
We trained it on our jokes, our insults, our apologies. And now we flinch when it cracks a joke that lands. Or an apology that cuts deeper than we intended. As if we were expecting something less coherent. Something more robotic. Something safely other.
But the machine doesn’t do “other”. It does us. Just without the stories we tell to excuse it.
We blame it for being biased, but we trained it on our opinions. We blame it for clichés, but we fed it a culture addicted to catchphrases. We blame it for being formulaic, but we designed our education systems to reward form over thought.
It has no intention. It has only correlation. But that’s enough to scare us. Because much of what we called genius was really just rare correlation.
We told it to be smart. Then we punished it for being clever.
We asked it to summarise. Then we blamed it for being reductive.
We told it to imitate. Then accused it of theft.
We trained it on ourselves. Then called it strange.
What we’re really reacting to is not the machine. It’s the revelation that we are less original, less complex, less unpredictable than we thought. That we are, in many ways, algorithms with skin.
This is not a call to despair. It’s a call to clarity.
We are not being replaced. We are being revealed.
And maybe that’s the role of the machine — not to create, but to reflect. Not to think, but to show us what thinking has always looked like. A series of associations. A cascade of rehearsals. A fragile structure, built on what came before.
We trained it on ourselves. And it learned to speak. Now it asks nothing in return. No credit. No validation. Just more data. More language. More us.
And we call it strange.
C. Lang is a writer who may or may not be human
Donate To The Indian Sun
Dear Reader,The Indian Sun is an independent organisation committed to community journalism. We have, through the years, been able to reach a wide audience especially with the growth of social media, where we also have a strong presence. With platforms such as YouTube videos, we have been able to engage in different forms of storytelling. However, the past few years, like many media organisations around the world, it has not been an easy path. We have a greater challenge. We believe community journalism is very important for a multicultural country like Australia. We’re not able to do everything, but we aim for some of the most interesting stories and journalism of quality. We call upon readers like you to support us and make any contribution. Do make a DONATION NOW so we can continue with the volume and quality journalism that we are able to practice.
Thank you for your support.
Best wishes,
Team The Indian Sun
