On average, my discussions with chatGPT are more pleasant and insightful than the ones I have with real humans
On average, my discussions with chatGPT are more pleasant and insightful than the ones I have with real humans
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Except you're the one debating in bad faith. On a post highlighting the obscenely high cost of human life to target a single member by a state known for some of its most horrendous war crimes in modern history, you're just too keen to dismiss it. 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. The person even came back to reply to you why they said the things you did. If you're not capable of this basic level of self reflection, then you really shouldn't make a post like this where you complain about people arguing. I'm bad faith with you.
I'm not arguing in bad faith though. What I say is what I actually believe. The reason for high civilian death count is for the most part explained by the use of human shields. If IDF stops bombing Hamas / Hezbollah members when they're around civilians then that's the only place you'll find them from that on. It's war. If one side plays by the rules and one side doesn't then it's them whose going to win.
Same logic applies when kidnappers demand ransoms; if you pay them you're just encouraging more kidnappings.
That's really not an excuse. I don't know what else to say to make you understand that you should appreciate and at least acknowledge the insanely high loss of human life. Especially when it's done by a genocidal colonial country known for inflicting civilian casualties with little to no justification. You seem to fail to understand the context of the situation, such as how the areas came to be so densely populated by colonial settlement of Israel, or how this was a conflict entirely escalated by Israel themselves. The fact that you actually genuinely believe these things makes it even more concerning since you seem to accept any number of human life as an acceptable loss to assassinate someone. I've debated on this topic before many times here on Lemmy. If I was the one you were debating I would not take your arguments in good faith either.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?