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
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

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

      • ContrarianTrail@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours 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
          1
          ·
          2 hours 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?