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.

    • Sundial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      The question is not relevant since money does not replace human lives.

      • ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Would you feel comfortable going to Lebanon right and now and preaching this point?

        No. How is the threat of violence supposed to prove I’m wrong?

        • Sundial@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          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?

          • ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Remember my comment about people saying things online where as if they said them in person, they would be assaulted and/or socially shunned? You’re this person in this case.

            Just like this isn’t a threat either I guess. Now whose debating in bad faith and is being emotionally captured.

            • Sundial@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              30 days ago

              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?

              • ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                30 days ago

                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.

                • Sundial@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  30 days ago

                  I never said anything of the sort. I asked you if you would be comfortable to look them in the eye as they mourn the losses of their husbands, their wives, their sons, their daughters, their brothers, their sisters, their grandfathers, and their grandmothers and say this was for the best? Are you capable of doing so with 100% conviction and without any remorse?

                  • ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    30 days ago

                    I’m 100% committed to honesty, so if forced to speak my mind, I’d say that yes, I cannot condemn the IDF for bombing the building where they were living, which had a Hamas HQ in the basement. If I had to choose, I would’ve made the same decision myself.

                    Similarly, I’d say to the family of the kidnapped person, I’m sorry, but I’ve decided not to pay the ransom. I understand this is bad news for you as individuals, but in the long run, it’s the choice I believe will help discourage kidnappings in the future.