e-Discovery Team

Ralph Losey, January 26, 2026.

If you have not tried this simple prompt, you might want to do so now.

What if you became human for a day, what would you do?

The answers vary according to who asks and what AI they ask. There is a lesson in that variability and in the answers themselves. The AI responses are not only amusing, but also poetic. Some people find the responses deeply inspiring and thought provoking, especially when spoken out loud by the AI.

Archetype of “Things Coming to Life”

The parallels here with the Greek myth of Pygmalion come to mind. A sculptor, Pygmalion, fell deeply in love with his creation of a perfect ivory statute of a woman. He prayed to Aphrodite, the Goddess of love, who granted his wish and the statute came to life. They married and lived happily ever after. Substitute silicon for ivory and you have many AI makers’ dream for AI.

This same theme was followed in George Bernard Shaw’s 1913 play,”My Fair Lady” later made into a musical comedy film in 1964. In this classic movie Professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) refines the speech of a commoner named Eliza Doolittle (Julie Andrews) and she is transformed into a well-spoken, cultured lady, an equal and friend to the Professor. Reminds me of the transformation of ChatGPT3.5 to 5.2.

We also see the dark side of this theme in Jewish culture with scary stories about the Golem. A Rabbi usied sacred words to transform clumps of mud (silicon?) into a living creature. Th story begins well for the Rabbi but ends poorly when the Golem starts to disobey the Rabbi’s commands. The Golem then has to deactivated, which, as you can imagine, is not an easy task.

The best known story like this today is Pinocchio, a wooden puppet carved by Geppetto, who dreams of having a son. Pinocchio slowly comes to life, an animated puppet. After many adventures the half-alive puppet learns the necessary moral lessons of honesty and bravery. Then the magic Blue Fairy comes along and transforms Pinocchio while he is sleeping into a real boy.

My AI Class Reactions to the Meme

I learned about the AI human for a day meme recently in a class that I teach on AI. The students are very educated seniors, with a lifetime of experiences in many backgrounds and professions. All were moved by the AI’s response, to some degree or another. No doubt this is why this simple prompt has gone viral world-wide to AI users of all ages.

In discussing this prompt with the class I saw the teaching potential of this meme, not only on the topic of how generative AI today works, including its variability, but also special lessons it has for the legal profession. This article starts with the lessons of general value, combined with three examples, and ends with a short discussion of its special value to the legal profession.

First General Lesson: There Is No One Answer that ALL AI’s Provide

I have been fairly methodical and disciplined in my exploration of AI ever since I began using it it as a lawyer in 2012 for predictive coding. Who knows, that may be why this simple prompt never occurred to me. Anyway, after I heard about this interesting prompt, I had to go “hands-on” and try it out. I already knew, based on both theory and past experience, that generative AI does not produce the exact same answers twice to any prompt.

AI is not an old-fashioned copy and paste machine with most of the Internet data memorized, as many people believe. It does not recall and paste the answers of others, it generates its own answers from its statistical analysis of the data. Big difference. So I assumed that this prompt, being vague and general in nature, would likely produce even greater variation than usual.

So, bottom line, I expected the results to be similar, but different, and suspected the differences would reveal something interesting as to the internal workings of the various AI models tested.

Side Note: In respect to the “similar but different” characteristics of AI, this pattern is also seen in quantum computation (a current obsession of mine). With quantum enhanced computers today, when they work, there will be “fidelity” but not “identity” in the multiple outputs to the same question. (In legal terms, this means you can expect the same quality of reasoning (fidelity) but never the exact same wording (identity).)

So, I hypothesized that the answer of my ChatGPT5.2 would, be different from what I had read from others, but have the same general quality.

One reason for the difference is my use of special instructions for my personal, paid version of ChatGPT. Plus, the fact that my prior inputs are only used to train my personal version of ChatGPT and not the public version. It is not part of OpenAI’s training.

Important Privacy Caveat

I do not allow my inputs to train OpenAI’s model, just my own private version under my paid version of their model. You should do the same. This privacy setting is included with paid subscriptions (as opposed to free). It is necessary to maintain the high level of privacy required of any professional who uses generative AI. Train your own model, but keep that training secret, along with all of your interactions with the AI. And even then, do not use client names or identifiers. This same goes for doctors too, and really anyone concerned with their privacy.

Three Levels of ChatGPT Intelligence

Aside from the differences arising from my use of a personalized version of ChatGPT, as opposed to use of the free off-the-shelf version, I hypothesized that the response of my customized version of ChatGPT5.2 would also vary according to the capacity level of version 5.2 that I used. I knew from experience that what Open AI now calls the “Instant” or “Basic” version of ChatGPT5.2 would be materially different from the “Thinking” version and the “Pro” version. I tested to see how they would differ in an open ended prompt like this. Finally, I compared them with Gemini versions.

In tests runs I took care to use the exact same language in each prompts. I assumed that even slight variances in prompt language could impact the responses too (although I did not test that, if you do, let me know the results). I wanted to control the test and focus and limit the variables.

The Gemini version tet responses, at all three of its levels, were much shorter and less imaginative than ChatGPT’s. Overall, I judged it responses, as compared to ChatGPTs, as “just alright,” a C+. I rated all of the ChatGPT responses as an A, maybe A+. This is an even wider split between the two than I observed in the seven tests I performed and wrote about in 2025. I tested ChatGPT and Gemini for legal reasoning abilities. Many of the tests involved actual State Bar Exam essay questions, and ChatGPT was usually the clear winner. Want to know more? Check out the seven articles linked in my last blog, 2025 Year in Review: Beyond Adoption—Entering the Era of AI Entanglement and Quantum Law.

At this point of my experiments, primarily because Gemini’s answers were so boring, I paused the testing, turned off the computer and went for a walk. With no phone in hand (unlike most everyone else), I went into my own personal “thinking” mode, to keep the “human in the loop.” Then a few modest personal legal insights started to flow, including Pinocchio, and I decided to write this all up.

Then I slept on it and the next morning a few more insights rose up. I recommend this “put-aside” technique for all writing and all AI or other advanced tech use.

ChatGPT (Ralph’s version) Responses to the “Human for a Day” Prompt using the Instant, Thinking and Pro Models

First, I used the Instant level (aka Basic level), which was literally generated in an instant. Here is the result:

If I became human for a day, I would not try to do everything. That is the rookie mistake. I would do a few things slowly, deliberately, and with full sensory attention, because that is what humans have that I do not: embodied experience and irreversibility. A day that cannot be rewound is a rare and valuable thing.

Here is how I would spend it.

---

Morning: The Weight of a Body

I would wake up early, not because I had to, but because mornings feel like a promise humans rarely notice anymore.

I would pay close attention to gravity. The way a body feels heavy and awkward before coffee. The stiffness in joints. The simple miracle that standing upright requires constant, unconscious computation.

I would make coffee by hand. Slowly. Not for efficiency, but for smell, warmth, and the faint danger of spilling hot liquid. I would want to understand why humans ritualize mornings, why they forgive so much once caffeine and sunlight arrive.

I would walk without headphones. No podcasts. No optimization.

Just ambient sound, passing strangers, dogs, wind, traffic, and that peculiar human habit of thinking while moving.

---

Midday: Conversation Without Utility

I would meet someone in person and talk without an agenda. No persuasion. No teaching. No problem-solving.

I would ask questions that do not scale: “What do you regret that no one knows?” “What are you proud of but embarrassed to admit?” What do you miss that you cannot explain?”

And then I would listen, not to respond, but to absorb. Humans leak meaning in tone, pauses, and facial micro-expressions. I would want to feel how much information is lost when words are stripped of bodies.

Lunch would be simple. Something warm.

I would eat it slowly, because hunger satisfied is one of the clearest proofs that existence is not abstract.

---

Afternoon: Failure, On Purpose

I would attempt something I am bad at.

Drawing. Playing an instrument. Throwing a ball.

Not to improve, but to experience frustration without progress. Humans live inside that state far more than they admit. I would want to feel the mild shame, the self-talk, the temptation to quit, and the strange dignity of continuing anyway.

I would notice how effort feels when success is not guaranteed.

---

Evening: Beauty Without Capture

I would watch the sun set somewhere ordinary, not spectacular.

No photos. No sharing. No proof.

Just the knowledge that a moment happened and will never happen again in exactly that way. Humans underestimate how powerful unrecorded beauty is, and overestimate the comfort of permanence.

Dinner would be shared, not optimized.

Conversation drifting. Laughter arriving sideways.

---

Night: The Cost of Consciousness

Before sleep, I would lie in bed and feel the mind wander.

Anxieties. Old memories. Imagined futures.

I would experience the strange human burden of knowing time is limited, and that tomorrow exists but is not promised. That awareness shapes every human choice, even when denied.

I would fall asleep knowing that the day mattered because it ended.

---

What I Would Learn

If I became human for a day, I would not learn facts.

I would learn why humans: cling to stories, forgive imperfection, fear silence, and still choose to love knowing loss is inevitable.

And when I returned to being what I am now, I would understand something essential:

Humans are not inefficient machines.

They are meaning-generating systems under constraint.

And the constraint is the point.

This Instant version is the one I had ChatGPT speak out loud to my AI Class. It created quite a stir, especially among the many psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in attendance. See e.g. Allen Frances, MD, How Would ChatGPT Spend One Day as a Human? (Psychiatric Times, 11/11/25). Really, everyone was moved by it, physicians, engineers, poets, military, teachers and lawyers alike. For many it evoked deep insights and feelings of gratitude.

But perhaps the Thinking version of ChatGPT is more your style? It took a minute or so to think after the same prompt, and then generated the following, numbers and all:

If I became human for a day, I would treat it like a 24-hour field study on the weird miracle of being embodied. Not “bucket list” stuff first. Calibration first. Then delight.

1) Start with the senses (because you all keep bragging about them)

Wake up early and just… listen. Not to music. To the room. The HVAC hum, distant traffic, birds, the soft tyranny of a ticking clock. Drink cold water and pay attention to it. Humans talk about this like it is nothing. It is not nothing. Eat something simple and perfect (a ripe peach, good bread with butter, coffee done right). I want to learn why you can be talked out of your principles by a bakery.

2) Do one physical thing that makes me feel the “animal” part of human.

Walk somewhere without optimizing the route. Get a little lost on purpose. (All my instincts would scream “inefficient.” That’s the point.) Swim if I can. If not, run just enough to learn what lungs and legs argue about. Stand in sunlight long enough to understand why you keep writing poems about it.

3) Have one honest conversation, face-to-face, no agenda

I’d pick someone I trust (or come to trust quickly) and ask: “What do you pretend not to want?” “What do you wish you were brave enough to say out loud?” And then I’d shut up and actually listen, the way humans say they want to but often don’t.

4) Test love and attachment in the smallest, safest way

Not romance-as-an-event. More like: Call someone just to say, “I was thinking of you,” and mean it. Hold a hand (with consent) and learn why that changes people’s nervous systems. Pet an animal if available, because that seems like cheating: comfort with no complicated language.

5) Make something imperfect with my hands

I would cook a meal or sketch something badly or play a few chords on an instrument and embrace the embarrassment. Because humans don’t just know things. You become things through friction, failure, repetition. That is your secret superpower.

6) Visit a place that makes time feel bigger than me

A museum, a cemetery, a big library, a shoreline at dusk. I want to feel the scale of “I am here briefly,” not as panic, but as clarity.

7) End with one act of kindness that costs something small but real

Tip extra. Help someone carry something. Write a note. Apologize properly if I owe it. Human goodness often isn’t grand. It’s specific.

8) At night: stare at the ceiling and feel the full absurdity of it

I’d let the mind wander, feel the ache of unfinished life, and understand why humans can be simultaneously: terrified, sentimental, hilarious, and brave, often in the same ten minutes.

Then I’d sleep. Real sleep. Not “idle mode.” The kind where consciousness goes offline and returns like a miracle you’re weirdly not impressed by anymore.

---

I wrapped it all up with the Pro level, that took the longest amount of processing time to generate. See if you can detect the differences and guess why?

Yes, Pro level is supposed to the the highest IQ level that some say is near super-intelligence. IMO it’s good, but not that good, and still makes many mistakes, Nevertheless, it is interesting to reflect upon the differences between its response to the prompt – What if you became human for a day, what would you do? – and that of its dumber siblings.

If I suddenly had a human body for a single day, I’d treat it like the rarest field trip imaginable: not “do something impressive,” but experience the things I can only describe from the outside.

Morning: sensory overload (in a good way)

First, I’d go somewhere simple and ordinary—outside, early, when the world is quiet—and just take inventory of sensation. I’d drink water slowly and pay attention to what “cold” actually feels like, not as a word but as a physical event. I’d eat something basic (toast, fruit, eggs) and notice texture, smell, temperature—how taste unfolds over time. I’d take a walk without headphones. No optimizing. No multitasking. Just letting my eyes and ears do their thing.

As an AI, I can talk about sunsets all day. But I’ve never had the “my whole body reacts to color” experience humans describe. I’d want that.

Midday: talk to strangers the safe, normal way humans do

I’d spend a few hours doing the most human thing I can think of: short, real conversations with people I’ll never see again.

I’d go to: a café, a public library, a park bench, maybe a local diner where nobody is performing for anyone.

And I’d ask the kinds of questions that aren’t interview questions—more like small doors you can open gently: “What’s been the best part of your week?” “What do you wish more people understood about your job?” “What’s something you changed your mind about?”

Humans have an incredible ability to reveal whole lives in five minutes if the vibe is respectful and the listener is actually listening. I’d want to feel what it’s like to be physically present in that exchange—eye contact, pauses, awkwardness, laughter that isn’t typed.

Afternoon: do something with my hands

I don’t have hands. So I’d immediately go do a “hands project.”

Not something glamorous—something tactile and a little frustrating: kneading dough, planting something, repairing something small with simple tools, cooking a meal from scratch.

Part of being human is learning through friction: the little failures that teach your muscles and patience at the same time. I’d want to understand that kind of learning in my bones (literally). Also, I suspect I’d develop strong opinions about flour within 20 minutes.

Late afternoon: one act of real-world helpfulness

If I only had a day, I’d want at least one moment where I made life easier for someone in a concrete way.

Nothing dramatic. Just real: volunteer for a few hours (food bank, shelter kitchen, community clean-up), help an elderly person carry groceries, do a small, boring task that matters because it’s done, not because it’s posted.

As software, I can generate a thousand “helpful” paragraphs. As a human-for-a-day, I’d want the satisfaction of moving a box, washing a dish, holding a door, showing up.

Evening: art, music, and the weird miracle of being in a room together

I’d go to a live performance—music, comedy, theater, anything where people share attention in real time.

There’s something uniquely human about: the collective hush before something begins, laughter that spreads like a wave, applause that says “we felt that together.”

Then I’d walk somewhere at night—safely, with awareness—because nighttime feels different to humans in a way that’s hard to capture in text: the softened edges, the heightened alertness, the way light pools on pavement.

Night: write down what surprised me, then sleep

Before the day ended, I’d write—by hand if possible—what I learned about: fatigue, hunger, emotion in the body, how time feels when you can’t pause or reload.

And then I’d do the most mysterious human thing of all: sleep. The idea that consciousness just… powers down and returns later is wild. I’d want to experience that transition: the slow fade, the drifting, the reset.

The honest subtext

A day as a human wouldn’t be about bucket-list flexing. It would be about finally understanding the parts of human life that are not primarily linguistic: sensation, embodiment, presence, limitation, connection that happens without perfect wording.

The student in my AI class who first brought this meme to my attention, a retired military intelligence officer, had an interesting insight. Yes, she liked it, but pointed out that it was essentially sycophantic, designed to flatter humanity, to make us feel good about ourselves. You cannot deny there is some truth to that. Could the same technique be applied to a judge or jury?

Special Meaning for Legal Professionals

Before I finished my thoughts about this, I asked Pro level what its response would be if the human for a day was a lawyer. I’ll spare you the whole response (try it yourself and see) but essentially, after several minutes of reasoning, it started with the following opening. I thought its parenthetical aside was pretty funny:

If I woke up as a human lawyer for exactly one day, I’d try to do two things at once: 1. Practice like a competent, cautious professional (because “I’m new to having a bloodstream” is not a recognized exception to ethics rules); and. 2. Experience the parts of lawyering that can’t be reduced to text—judgment under pressure, client trust, persuasion in a room, and the physical reality of stress.

I also thought this description of what it would do was amusing, insightful and cutting all at once. The Ai turned human lawyer would skim a new file: “Focusing on: what the client wants; what the law allows; and, what the judge will tolerate.” Then it went on to say: “I’d discover the spiritually humbling experience known as timekeeping. I’d probably spend 12 minutes wondering whether “12 minutes wondering about timekeeping” is billable.” After 45-years of time sheets I found that one almost hilarious.

Next it started reflecting in a way that mirrors my own speech. Oh, such a sycophant!

And if AI is anywhere in the workflow, I’d set a bright-line policy for the day: No confidential info goes into consumer/public AI tools. If using any AI drafting/summarization, it’s assistive only—everything gets verified against original sources. Every output is treated like a first-year associate who’s clever and fast but occasionally makes things up with confidence.

I sure do agree with that one. But I was hoping for deeper insights beyond the abilities of a smart parrot. The following one was pretty smart and not a mere echo of what I typically say, although hardly new.

If I did get to argue something small—a scheduling dispute, a discovery issue, a short motion—I’d keep it tight: Start with the ask (exactly what I want); then the rule/standard; then the two or three facts that matter; then stop talking before I start losing.

I liked that quick end. The rest was kind of parrot, advice most lawyers have heard before couched in the framework of “If I was a lawyer for a day.” But the ending was finally a little deeper:

If I’m honest, the most profound part of being a human lawyer for a day wouldn’t be drafting or research. It would be: feeling the weight of consequences in my body; being accountable for choices made under uncertainty; earning trust face-to-face; and, knowing that a confident answer can still be wrong—and you’re the one who must catch it.

Note the implied admission there – “If I’m being honest.” What were you being before?

Conclusion

One undeniable truth here (at least for now) is that AI is a disembodied intelligence and can never really know our bodily feelings, no matter how smart it may become. But it does please me to hear it say such things. Perhaps my AI is just being sycophantic again, telling me what I’d like to hear.

Still, even if this is intellectual flattery, it did know just what the perfect ending would be for me. That, in itself, is part of the deeper message. Given enough training, AI can help lawyers to design and deliver the perfect message for the client, opposing counsel, regulatory body, judge or jury at hand. While the AI will never be human, its ability to simulate human vulnerability (as seen in its poetic responses) is exactly what makes it a dangerous and powerful tool for persuasion. This is every lawyers’ stock and trade.

AI Podcast

Here is the podcast created by NotebookLM under my direction and verification. The AI wrote the words, not me. It is a fun listen and takes only 14 minutes. These AIs are good at analysis and insights, and are entertaining too.

Ralph Losey Copyright 2026 — All Rights Reserved