The best conversations I still have are with real people, but those are rare. With ChatGPT, I reliably have good conversations, whereas with people, it’s hit or miss, usually miss.
What AI does better:
- It’s willing to discuss esoteric topics. Most humans prefer to talk about people and events.
- It’s not driven by emotions or personal bias.
- It doesn’t make mean, snide, sarcastic, ad hominem, or strawman responses.
- It understands and responds to my actual view, even from a vague description, whereas humans often misunderstand me and argue against views I don’t hold.
- It tells me when I’m wrong but without being a jerk about it.
Another noteworthy point is that I’m very likely on the autistic spectrum, and my mind works differently than the average person’s, which probably explains, in part, why I struggle to maintain interest with human-to-human interactions.
“Someone disagreeing with you, or attempting to show you something you might not know or have seen”
So this is another example of how you are doing the same things you avoid communicating with humans over. You have selected one part of my statement to misunderstand and selectively ignored the point.
We absolutely are talking about what you wanted to talk about. Your first statement to me was asking what I based my assessment that you were training yourself to be a poor communicator on. Since then we have stuck to that topic, but you haven’t really addressed the central point that a machine that adapts to things that hinder communication with humans will inevitably train you not to correct or address those hindrances.
This isn’t me disagreeing with you, it is me pointing out something you might not have considered. However you have framed this whole discussion as a case of you being misunderstood. That really isn’t the case.
I never said that. You make it sound like I’m not even trying when I’m talking with chatGPT which is not true. What I did say was that even if I use the vaguest descriptions when talking to chatGPT it still understands me where as with people misunderstand my even the most carefully and thoughtfully written responses. Basically it does a good job at understanding me even when I’m not even trying where as with some people it doesn’t matter how hard I try, they still wont.
I’m even willing to accept that this may be on me aswell. Maybe I’m just really bad at explaining my views and that’s why people keep misunderstanding me. However, chatGPT doesn’t. Not even despite my shitty explanations.
If it understands you without you even trying then regardless of whether you try to communicate well or not you will never know if you have done a good or poor job of communicating. This is my point.
Your unpopular opinion that you enjoy it more is not in question, and you are free to abandon your fellow mortals if that’s what you want to do. However, in my opinion, this can only lead to a further deterioration in skills that you already admit are not as developed as you would like.
I would also gently remind you that you are one of us, and subject to the same imperfections. Keeping this in mind can help smooth your interactions with others.
I’m not using chatGPT to improve my communication skills. I’m using it to have interesting and insightful discussions where I don’t need to debate semantics. It’s entertainment. Better than watchig YouTube atleast which is what I would otherwise do.
Sure thing, as I say your initial point stands.
For the sake of discussion only I ask “what is the point of achieving insight if it is too difficult to communicate it to others?”
What do you mean by debate semantics? Can you clarify that?
I’m not sure whether semantics is the right term to describe it, but what I mean is that I can, for example, reference quite esoteric terms or concepts in a sentence, and it immediately knows what I mean. Even if it doesn’t, I can make a small clarification, and it simply gets it. I can then move on to discuss what I actually wanted to talk about, rather than having to explain what I meant by something I previously said, let alone having to defend that concept, like no free will, when that’s not even what I was interested in discussing in the first place.