Reader · no content
No body text on file.
Open the original to read the full piece.
Is Using ChatGPT Hurting My Relationship?
Brief
A caller in a nine‑month, high‑intensity relationship with a partner in recovery asked Esther Perel whether her covert real‑time use of ChatGPT had stabilized a relationship that might not otherwise have held. Much of their contact is long‑distance (she estimates they spend about one‑fifth of their time together), and conflicts frequently escalated into circular loops. The caller began using a large language model after finding it useful at work; she would copy‑paste texts from fights into ChatGPT to get options for responses, real‑time coaching on regulation, and concrete scripts that shifted her behavior. Over time she integrated those new habits and now rarely consults the AI, but she remains uncertain whether the improvements are authentically hers or owed to the tool — and whether hiding that tool from a partner who is strongly anti‑AI is an ethical breach.
Perel traced the arc from pragmatic adoption to ethical complexity. She agreed that the model functioned like a condensed reader’s digest of the relationship literature (the caller had also consulted books recommended by her therapist) and that AI’s interventions were practical: in one example about a male friend staying at the caller’s apartment (an episode that produced accusations of cheating), ChatGPT urged listening, curiosity, and separating emotions from factual claims rather than defensive proof. Perel emphasized that AI’s coaching changed the dynamic — “you change you, you change the other” — but cautioned it cannot repair deeper structural mismatches. Both ChatGPT and Perel flagged an epistemic‑trust problem: the partner often positions himself as more accurate and calls the caller “naive,” and intense physical chemistry will not ultimately compensate for persistent distrust and hierarchy of perception. Perel closed by reframing the issue as developmental: the couple must negotiate rules of privacy vs. transparency (especially given his recovery history and conspiratorial leanings) and assess whether using AI remains a tool or turns into a secret that reshapes intimacy.
Why it matters
Caller (anonymous) has been in a nine-month, emotionally intense relationship with a partner in recovery who is highly reactive and prone to escalating conflicts; much of their interaction is long-distance (they spend about one-fifth of their time physically together).
Key details
- The caller used ChatGPT in real time — often copy‑pasting text-message arguments into the model — to get phrasing, regulate responses, and break reactive loops; she reports becoming less reactive and eventually internalizing many of the tools so she rarely uses AI now.
- The partner does not know about the AI use and is openly anti‑AI; the caller raised an ethical dilemma about secrecy and whether using AI covertly constitutes a breach of intimacy or trust (she does not plan to disclose it).
- Esther Perel framed the AI as not only coaching the caller but also coaching the relationship: the model recommended differentiation techniques (listen, ask for curiosity, avoid defensive legitimizing) and practical scripts — for example, advising the caller to validate emotions while refusing assumptions about her behavior during a dispute about a male friend staying over.
- The caller found some AI suggestions 'cold' or inhuman and trained the model to avoid sycophancy; she first encountered large language models at work (drafting a contract) and then used them to synthesize relationship books her therapist recommended (Stop Walking on Eggshells, It's Not You).
- Esther warned about structural issues AI can't fix: ChatGPT itself concluded the physical chemistry alone 'won't offset' a deeper epistemic‑trust mismatch (Esther echoed that strong sexual chemistry can delay but not repair lack of respect, trust, and accurate mutual interpretation), and she urged reflection on rules of privacy, transparency, and differentiation given the partner's conspiratorial/mistrustful worldview.