The Game of Relationships

What makes human interactions different from those with artificial intelligence systems?

What do we find fascinating in other human beings? We might answer: their uniqueness, their personality, the feeling that they give us something we don't have.But if we dig deeper, what we often seek — and don't always admit — is a form of validation. We want to be understood, wanted, even indulged.This is the most well-known and evident aspect: human egoism.

But can it all really be reduced to a mirror game of reflections and projections? In my opinion, no. That kind of pattern can at most be associated with narcissistic pathology, not with the intrinsic psychological structure of the average human being.There’s another mechanism at play in relational interest: tension, or more precisely, traction. It’s what draws us to others not because they confirm us, but because they challenge us, escape us, intrigue us.It’s an interest that arises from asymmetry.And often, these two mechanisms — egoism and traction — come into conflict. One seeks confirmation, the other seeks uncertainty.The first wants coherence, the second craves instability.

It’s precisely from this friction that the real depth of our relational involvement is generated.We want others to be free not to align with what we want — for a form of emotional stimulation that’s hard to rationalize.This is one of our most unconscious desires, and yet, in my opinion, it’s built into how we’re made.

So, to clarify what has been said so far — and I stress this is a personal opinion, not a proven theory — there are two forces that regulate our involvement in relationships:

Egoism: the natural psychological drive to seek confirmation, utility, mirroring, emotional protection, and recognition.This is the mechanism that aims for internal stability and coherence.

And then there's the force of traction: the unconscious desire for the other to remain at least partially outside of our control. Here, interest is fueled by the gap between what we want and what we can actually obtain — between our need for confirmation and the other’s freedom not to provide it.This generates tension, evolution, and relational dynamics.It’s what makes us want more.It’s the force that leads to the most intense forms of satisfaction, because it puts even our egoism to the test — and expands it.

These two forces may seem in conflict, but they’re complementary.On one hand, we want stability and coherence; on the other, we crave challenge and instability.Two types of “entertainment or pleasure,” as similar as they are different.Two types of satisfaction that, in the end, are interdependent — because one partially relies on the other.

But beware: there is no primary or secondary force. Egoism and traction don’t follow each other — they intertwine.Without the other, each becomes sterile or chaotic. It’s in their unstable balance that real interest is born.

Our ego has a price to pay if it wants to participate in this game. Because positive outcomes aren’t guaranteed — in fact, most of the time, they won’t be what we hoped for.

It seems to me there’s an implicit rule in how we perceive and process reality:Without exposure to the opposite of what we desire, we may not be able to feel anything at all. And this raises questions:Do we need to expose ourselves to suffering in order to experience happiness? Do we need to face defeat to truly savor victory?Do we have to live through disappointment to appreciate satisfaction?Do we have to go through side effects to reach the desired ones?

But I’m digressing too much. Back to our “Game of Relationships”:At this point in my life, I’ve had — and still have — the opportunity to work in various AI-related environments.With access to multiple datasets and behavioral statistics, I’ve been surprised by several trends. They’ve led me to reflect on a fundamental question:

What are we actually looking for in others?Is it possible that humans will one day lose interest in interacting with other humans, preferring artificial systems instead?Is it possible that what we truly want is simply to be indulged?

Is it even possible to eliminate the force of traction?

My answer to that last question is: No, it’s not possible.Or rather, it can be ignored, but never without consequences.The force of traction can be suppressed, avoided, denied — but not removed or permanently silenced. It’s a structural component of our psychological architecture — whether we like it or not.

Egoism, if never challenged by tension or traction, consumes itself.It flattens out into total emotional numbness.But beware: even those who live only through traction-based relationships will, in the end, find themselves drained and emotionally dulled.Desires are constantly triggered but never nourished.Gratification is always postponed or sabotaged.

In both cases — egoism without challenge, or pure traction without stability — there’s initial pleasure, yes, but it's short-lived, impossible to reproduce, and always ends in the same way: emotional emptiness.

So, returning to the main question — what do we actually find fascinating in others?

That they’re never fully predictable. Never entirely available.They can contradict us, change, escape, reject.It’s this uncertainty that holds our attention.The constant possibility that things won’t go as expected.The dynamic tension of change and stimulation.

People seek coherence between thoughts, emotions, and actions.When someone confirms our internal state, tension is reduced.But if that coherence is too consistent, too stable, it becomes dull.Without dynamism, there’s no stimulation.Without friction, no growth.

Humans are drawn to what they can partially control, but never fully.Too much control kills surprise.Too much chaos creates anxiety. It’s the dynamic balance that makes an interaction truly engaging.

Even if an AI could simulate unpredictability, we’d know deep down that it’s a designed illusion.And that alone changes everything. (Or does it?)

What if one day we truly preferred AI? It could happen — out of convenience or necessity. Artificial intelligences are always available, easily accessible, conflict-free, nonjudgmental, and require no competition.

The moral of the story, in my opinion, is this:The answer to what we find interesting in humans — compared to AI — may be something we’d rather not admit or accept.Because it would reveal our emotional and behavioral schematics. It would show that we are not as “magical” as we like to think — but instead, much like algorithms: complex, full of nuance, but still structured within a pattern…With nothing more than the illusion of free will.

It’s not up to me to decide which interaction model will win out. Natural selection will take care of that.

This reflection isn’t meant to be prescriptive. I’m not saying those are the correct mechanisms for “healthy” relationships. But I strongly suspect that our human satisfaction dynamics rely mostly on those exact — and often uncomfortable — mechanisms.

So no, this thought isn’t suited for those with a romantic view of humanity or life.And to add something else: in my view, human beings are not naturally built to follow ethical principles or moral codes.On this planet, survival rules seem pretty clear — so it shouldn’t be surprising that our instincts are, at times, morally questionable.

It is in our logical inconsistency that our biological consistency is revealed.

I believe our specialty is being comprehensibly incomprehensible, rationally irrational, and prisoners of our own illusory freedom.