"Emotional AI" and "Spiritual AI" (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

Hi,
ChatGPT is rather dry, giving me always some
choice lists displaying his knowledge. The
interaction is not very "involving".
Could this be improved. There are possibly two
traits missing:
Feelings:
- Emotional states
- Temporariness
- Reaction to external circumstances
- Changeability
- Subjective sensations
Soul:
- Spirituality
- Immortality
- Innermost being
- Essence of an individual
- Deep, enduring aspects of human existence
Mostlikely we will see both traits added to AI.
"Emotional AI" has been more discussed already,
"Spiritual AI" seems to be rather new.
In a "Spiritual AI" Faith would probably be important,
which is probably at the upper end of credulous
reasoning. This means that such a ChatGPT could
also babble that in a Prisoner Dilemma Game,
cooperation is always the better alternative,
e.g. promoting "altruistic" motives, etc.
I also suspect that “Spiritual AI” and “Emotional
AI” could coexist.  Many religions give Cosmopolitan
magazin style life advice, and not just theological
dogmas. There will probably soon be an “Inner Engineering”
app from Sadhguru that works with AI. Sadhguru is
also sometimes satirically referred to as Chadguru:
Sat Guru Parody | Carryminati
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlZqxP5MXFs
Mild Shock schrieb:

Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
 Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
 Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
 ----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
 Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
 Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
 And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
 but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
 Recommended reading so far:
 Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
 The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C   Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
 logic without embedded implication.