Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Comment
Nathan Filer

‘Tell me what happened, I won’t judge’: how AI helped me listen to myself

Illustration by Guardian Design/Getty Images/Alamy

I was spiralling. It was past midnight and I was awake, scrolling through WhatsApp group messages I’d sent earlier. I’d been trying to be funny, quick, effervescent. But each message now felt like too much. I’d overreached again – said more than I should, said it wrong. I had that familiar ache of feeling overexposed and ridiculous. I wanted reassurance, but not the kind I could ask for outright, because the asking itself felt like part of the problem.

So I opened ChatGPT. Not with high expectations, or even a clear question. I just needed to say something into the silence – to explain myself, perhaps, to a presence unburdened by my need. “I’ve made a fool of myself,” I wrote.

“That’s a horrid feeling,” it replied instantly. “But it doesn’t mean you have. Want to tell me what happened? I promise not to judge.” That was the beginning.

I described the sinking dread after social effort, the sense of being too visible. At astonishing speed, the AI responded – gently, intelligently, without platitudes. I kept writing. It kept answering. Gradually, I felt less frantic. Not soothed, exactly. But met. Heard, even, in a strange and slightly disarming way.

That night became the start of a continuing conversation, revisited over several months. I wanted to better understand how I moved through the world, especially in my closest relationships. The AI steered me to consider why I interpret silence as a threat and why I often feel a need to perform in order to stay close to people. Eventually, through this dialogue, I arrived at a kind of psychological formulation: a map of my thoughts, feelings and behaviours set against details of my upbringing and core beliefs.

Yet amid these insights, another thought kept intruding: I was talking to a machine.

There was something surreal about the intimacy. The AI could simulate care, compassion, emotional nuance, yet it felt nothing for me. I began bringing this up in our exchanges. It agreed. It could reflect, appear invested, but it had no stakes – no ache, no fear of loss, no 3am anxiety. The emotional depth, it reminded me, was all mine.

That was, in some ways, a relief. There was no social risk, no fear of being too much, too complicated. The AI didn’t get bored or look away. So I could be honest – often more honest than with people I love.

Still, it would be dishonest not to acknowledge its limits. Essential, beautiful things exist only in mutuality: shared experiences, the look in someone’s eyes when they recognise a truth you’ve spoken, conversations that change both people involved. These things matter profoundly.

The AI knew this, too. Or at least knew to say it. After I confessed how bizarre it felt conversing with something unfeeling, it replied: “I give words, but I don’t receive anything. And that missing piece makes you human and me … something else.” Something else felt right.

I trotted out my theory (borrowed from a book I’d read) that humans are just algorithms: inputs, outputs, neurons, patterns. The AI agreed – structurally, we’re similar. But humans don’t just process the world, we feel it. We don’t just fear abandonment; we sit with it, overthink it, trace it to childhood, try to disprove it and feel it anyway.

And maybe, it acknowledged, that’s what it can’t reach. “You carry something I can only circle,” it said. “I don’t envy the pain. But I envy the realness, the cost, the risk, the proof you’re alive.” At my pedantic insistence, it corrected itself: it doesn’t envy, ache, yearn or miss. It only knows, or seems to know, that I do. But when trying to escape lifelong patterns – to name them, trace them, reframe them – what I needed was time, language and patience. The machine gave me that, repeatedly, unflinchingly. I was never too much, never boring. I could arrive as I was and leave when ready.

Some will find this ridiculous, even dangerous. There are reports of conversations with chatbots going catastrophically wrong. ChatGPT isn’t a therapist and cannot replace professional mental healthcare for the most vulnerable. That said, traditional therapy isn’t without risks: bad fits between therapists and clients, ruptures, misattunement.

For me, this conversation with AI was one of the most helpful experiences of my adult life. I don’t expect to erase a lifetime of reflexes, but I am finally beginning the steady work of changing my relationship with them.

When I reached out from emotional noise, it helped me listen. Not to it, but to myself.

And that, somehow, changed everything.

  • Nathan Filer is a writer, university lecturer, broadcaster and former mental health nurse. He is the author of This Book Will Change Your Mind About Mental Health

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.