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.
I don’t think it’s a good option but I believe it’s the better one on a long term.
Do yoi disagree with the comparison to paying ransoms to kidnappers too?
I give you a situation where a genocidal maniac attacks a foreign country entirely unprovoked and inflicts thousands of deaths to kill a single person and you think it’s the best long term option? Would you feel comfortable going to Lebanon right and now and preaching this point?
The point about paying ransoms?
The question is not relevant since money does not replace human lives.
No. How is the threat of violence supposed to prove I’m wrong?
That’s not a threat. It’s a question. You seem to be able to justify those actions so easily. Are you actually able to justify those actions to the victims? Are you actually able to look them in the eyes as their neighbors attack them unprovoked and without consequence and say this is good for the long term?
Just like this isn’t a threat either I guess. Now whose debating in bad faith and is being emotionally captured.
Asking you to envision a scenario where you are forced to confront the stark reality of your moral argument is not a threat. Why is it so hard for you to empathize with others and accept another’s world view? On a conversation about an absurd loss of human life you seem to be incapable of even acknowledging how wrong that is. Have you ever thought why that is?
You’re asking me wether I would dare to tell my opinion to a crowd who would assault / murder me for saying it and acting as if that’s a proof that I’m wrong. It’s like me asking wether you’d dare to go to North Korea and criticise Kim Jong Un. No you wouldn’t and that doesn’t say anything about wether he’s worth criticising.