Is AI software a useful tool or does it dictate how I see myself?

What does it mean to be attractive? Why is one woman considered beautiful by almost everybody and another to be plain or even downright ugly? Why is one man seen as an attractive physical specimen and another seen as woefully lacking?

I’ve pondered this all my life, partly because I considered myself unattractive and wondered why. I couldn’t figure out why one arrangement of sizes and proportions and colors was considered an example of great beauty and others weren’t noteworthy.

I finally came to understand that some of it is biological and some of it is cultural. I don’t claim to have it all figured out, but I see that some standards persist over the centuries and others change with the fashions. And since a great part of it turns out to be subjective, I’ve been concerned about what various forms of media were teaching people to feel about themselves — based on arbitrary and fleeting beauty standards.

And just this week, I’ve realized that we have something new to worry about. With the rise of so-called “artificial intelligence” software, we are hard-coding current cultural preferences into software. And as AI software becomes more widespread and more influential, these subjective cultural standards are being injected into that software.

And more and more people are going to accept whatever this software says as objective truth — when it’s nothing but the collective biases of the people who trained the software. To test how this worked, I asked ChatGPT to tell me how attractive I am. And I was surprised by how it left me feeling.

I found a tool that someone created on ChatGPT called Honest Attractiveness Analyzer. This somehow sounds objective and fair and accurate. It’s computer software, so if it’s able to give me specifics, it must be accurate, because it would have no reason to be biased, right?

So I tried the tool. To be honest, it was fun. As a novelty, I can recommend it. (I already have a free ChatGPT account, so you might need to create an account in order to use it.)

I snapped a new photo of myself and uploaded it. The software immediately gave me a lot of feedback and it asked me questions about myself. Here’s some of what it said:

Total Attractiveness Score: 7.2 / 10

This score places you solidly in the “highly appealing overall” category, especially for people who value intelligence, depth, and emotional insight. While you may not fit conventional beauty ideals, your presence, intellect, and emotional resonance are very attractive traits that significantly elevate your appeal beyond raw aesthetics.

Here’s how the software analyzed my face. This was called a “facial structure evaluation.”

Positive Attributes:

Eyes: Bright and open, with good spacing. Clear and expressive—your eyes are one of your best features.

Smile: Friendly and inviting. Adds warmth and approachability, which boosts overall appeal.

Skin Tone: Healthy complexion, evenly toned.

Constructive Notes [which is a nice way to say “the bad stuff”]

Facial Symmetry: Slight asymmetry present, which is common and natural but mildly affects classical standards of facial balance.

Jawline: Softer and less angular, which reduces definition—a sharper jawline is typically rated higher in conventional attractiveness metrics.

Cheekbone Definition: Lower definition; more angular cheekbones generally elevate facial harmony.

Hairline: Receding slightly, which is normal with age but plays into how youthfulness and symmetry are perceived.

Although I certainly wasn’t surprised at not making the top 10 percent or top 20 percent of overall attractiveness, I did wince a bit at “you may not fit conventional beauty standards…” I didn’t necessarily disagree, but the judgment felt so definitive. This was software rendering an impersonal, objective answer. So it had to be accurate, right?

Then the software offered to tell me about what sort of partner I could realistically expect to attract.

Given your total score of 7.2, your most compatible partner would likely fall in the 6.5 to 8.5 range overall — someone with similar intellectual and emotional depth, but possibly with a bit more ambition or extroverted charisma if you seek balance. Emotional maturity, kindness, and shared values will likely matter far more to you than purely superficial traits.

Then the software told me more about this partner I should be able to attract:

Emotionally mature, empathetic, and intellectually curious.

Likely to appreciate depth, humor, and meaningful conversation over superficial appearances.

Possibly someone who values authenticity and can reciprocate the kind of emotional attunement you exhibit.

A partner who similarly places importance on emotional connection, intellectual compatibility, and long-term stability.

As I first read it all, I did find it impressive that software could come to these conclusions about me. I felt about the same way I might have felt if I had participated in some sort of party game in which everybody rated everyone and the answers were all averaged. I’ll admit that it seemed kind of fun, in a self-centered sort of way.

But in the 24 hours since I used the software, it’s had an effect that I didn’t expect. It’s not a massive effect, but I feel it nonetheless.

I don’t feel as though I’ve gotten a subjective opinion, either of some particular person or a particular group of people. I find myself feeling as though I have been given objective truth, just as surely as I might feel if a calculator added two numbers for me.

And I don’t like this.

It’s one thing to tell an adult man how he measures up to the current beauty standards of the culture, but it’s a much different thing to subject younger people to the same thing. Theoretically, I’m mature enough and strong-willed enough to tell myself that what the software says might or might not be accurate. And I should be mature enough to already have a pretty good self-concept by this point in my life. I should know pretty well by now what I think of myself — and how I can generally expect others to see me.

But what about teens or young adults who aren’t that mature? What about those who still don’t quite know how to view themselves? Are they going to look at what software such as this says — and see whatever the software says as objective? Are they going to see the answers they get as destiny?

I’ve known plenty of people who weren’t the most attractive in the objective sense, but who appeared very attractive as they moved through life — all because of their personalities and how they saw themselves and how they carried themselves. I’m sure you have, too.

Software such as this can tell us a lot about the culture whose biases were embedded into the software, but that software can’t tell us a thing about the flesh-and-blood humans who interact with other humans.

I don’t want to stop anybody from creating AI software. I don’t want to stop anybody from using it. But I’m very uncomfortable with what I see it becoming for us.

Software can be amazing when it’s asked to deal with objective reality, but when it’s asked to render judgments such as this, the only thing it can do (at best) is to reflect the biases of whoever designed and trained the software. Yes, it’s amazing that it can seem so accurate in some ways. Yes, it can be fun. I get that.

But I feel as though there are hidden dangers which we’re not fully seeing yet. And I’m starting to fear that we’re jumping headlong into something that has implications we don’t understand — and something which will be hard to “turn off” if it turns out to be dangerous.

I hope I’m wrong, but my gut tells me we’re walking into a trap from which we won’t be able to escape.