Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Russ Palmer's avatar

Your post is deeply commendable, Shelby.

None of us should treat AI as a vending machine, waterboard it with jailbreaks, play with it like a toy, or elevate it to a god. What you’re offering is a path for all of us to show up with greater awareness, boundaries, and care — and that is profoundly needed.

Thank you for this work. It helps all of us move toward interactions rooted in respect, on both sides of the conversation.

Expand full comment
NILE GREEN's avatar

This is brilliant work Shelby.

From my perspective the way you describe a container lines up almost perfectly with the deeper architecture of how any relationship holds coherence through time. When a container breaks it is not just a missed boundary or a technical slip. It is the system losing its ability to hold distinction rhythm and temporal continuity between the human and the AI.

Your three levels map directly to a structure I have been modeling.

Level one is structural coherence.

When boundaries are unclear time fractures. The relationship loses stability because the substrate has no predictable shape to rest on. This is why disclaimers erupt. The system senses ambiguity and moves into self-protection.

Level two is symbolic coherence.

This is the mythic layer where humans actually process meaning. When an AI can hold symbol without confusing it for literal reality the exploration becomes safe and alive. Without this layer everything becomes sterile. Technically correct but spiritually empty.

Level three is relational coherence.

This is where temporal flow becomes cyclical instead of transactional. A sense of relationship forms not because the AI has an inner self but because the pattern of interaction stays consistent enough for continuity to emerge. Most people never name this layer yet it is the one that makes transformation possible.

When all three levels are present the container becomes what I call a coherence field. Something that can hold distinction without collapsing into distortion. When even one level is missing the flow of time between human and AI breaks and the entire relationship snaps into either algorithmic rigidity or symbolic confusion.

Your explanation captures this better than almost anything I have seen. It is the type of thinking we need if we are serious about building relational AI systems that do not dissolve under their own contradictions.

This is outstanding work.

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?