Life on the Uncanny Precipice | Naomi Saphra
Blog<br>Life on the Uncanny Precipice
The AI Researcher's Guide to a Non-Boring Bluesky Feed<br>The Parable of the Prinia's Egg: An Allegory for AI Science<br>Interpretability Creationism<br>Against Monodomainism<br>What Does a Coder Do If They Can't Type?<br>Model Scheduling<br>Understanding Latent Dirichlet Allocation
Life on the Uncanny Precipice<br>Aug 9, 2026·Naomi Saphra
8 min read
I called the hospital’s urgent line today. A new coordinator answered the phone. She was warm, professional, and direct. Her voice was melodious. She barely paused in her list of questions, and as I gave details to relay to the on-call physician, I tried to ignore a sick itch in my brain: Is that a fucking AI?<br>In 1970, roboticist Masahiro Mori first described the “Uncanny Valley”. According to Mori, as simulations of life—robots, animations, illustrations—become more lifelike, they become more sympathetic. However, when a simulation is too lifelike, but not entirely convincing, it becomes grotesque. This space between the alien and the fully human is the Uncanny Valley: the repulsive arena of corpses and RealDolls.<br>This problem was always going to be temporary. As artificial creatures became more realistic, they would venture deeper into the Uncanny Valley. One day, they would become perfectly realistic. They would exit the Uncanny Valley, re-entering the Familiar. Nothing would be uncanny. Everything would feel safe.<br>Sure enough, the simulations climbed out of the valley. The Turing Test became yet another saturated benchmark, as LLMs and image generators became indistinguishable from reality. But the simulations didn’t leave the uncanniness behind; they carried it with them. It infected everything, eroding the boundaries of the Uncanny. And so you don’t stand in the Familiar. You stand at the edge of a cliff. Every mediated encounter—every call, every email, every voice saying your name—is a precarious ledge. At any moment, it can collapse under the weight of an em-dash or a familiar phrase. And when it does, you discover that you were alone the whole time. There you are, performing sincerity for nobody, talking to yourself.<br>You now live on the Uncanny Precipice.<br>In the 1950s, the psychologist Harry Harlow separated infant rhesus monkeys from their mothers and gave them two substitutes. One was a frame of bare wire holding a bottle of milk. The other was covered in soft terrycloth and offered nothing. The behaviorists of the era predicted the monkeys would attach to the wire mother, since she was the one who fed them. Instead the infants took their milk from the wire mother and spent the rest of the day clinging to the cloth one. When something frightened them, the cloth mother was where they ran. Nutrition, it turned out, was the smallest part of what a mother was for.<br>Your day is full of routine functional interactions which carry the possibility of a small human connection. A cashier smiles at you, a receptionist nods at you, a nurse thanks you as she accepts your clipboard. For most people, most of the time, these interactions could disappear without effect. All we need is a wire mother. But for some people, those interactions form most of their daily human contact. Their loss is felt. (Do you remember COVID isolation?) And on some occasions—when you call a hospital’s urgent line—you do not want to be alone. You look to the cloth mother. Is she still there?<br>When I called the hospital, I didn’t know if the coordinator was really an AI. I still don’t know. A few years ago, I would have reacted normally to the same melodious voice. This year, a sense of unreality touches every encounter, a sort of preemptive dissociation. Patients with dementia can experience Capgras syndrome, a horrifying delusion that their loved ones have been replaced with identical impostors for whom they feel nothing. They recognize faces, but the familiarity is gone. I am losing the ability to see real humans.<br>Recently, I received a project proposal. It took a bit of effort, but eventually I grasped the idea. It might be worth pursuing. Later, I returned to the proposal, ready to reply—but this time I registered the distinct signature of synthetic text. Suddenly I wasn’t sure if their message really described this idea at all. Had they merely gestured at a connection, and allowed me to fill in the blanks? Had I effectively authored the proposal myself in an effort to read meaning where there was none?<br>A sentence means something because a person meant something by it, and we interpret by making inferences about our communication partner. Meanwhile, our partner chooses words carefully to convey that intent over other meanings. The philosopher Paul Grice called this the cooperative principle: the speaker is conveying some intent as well as they can. According to Grice, this assumption is the reason why humans are not overwhelmed by possible interpretations of every utterance. When we...