71
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.
Autism and social unawareness may be a factor. But points you made like the snide remarks one may also indicate that you're having these conversations with assholes.
Well, it's a self-selecting group of people. I can't comment on the ones who don't respond to me, only on the ones who do and for some reason the amount of assholes seems to be quite high in that group. I just don't feel like it's warranted. While I do have a tendency to make controversial comments I still try and be civil about it and I don't understand the need to be such a dick about it even if someone disagrees with me. I welcome disagreement and are more than willing to talk about it as long as it's done in good faith.
Sorry, just to clarify. Are you saying you're having these conversations with people on person or online?
Online for the most part. Face to face it's much easier to explain my views, as well as to jump in when the other person starts talking and I notice they misunderstood me.
Also, I just went into your comment history and took a quick peek. Your latest "unpopular" opinion seems to be because you disregarded the lives of civilians from the most recent attack by Israel to assassinate Nasrallah. You come across as quite callous trying to justify the murder of hundreds/thousands all to attack one individual. Stuff like that rubs people the wrong way since you seem to display a very morally and ethically wrong opinion when you can't even seem to acknowledge the horrendous loss of life.
I don't think my opinion is wrong in this particular case but I'm open for having it challenged. It's just than when people do it in a hostile way as was the case here, I simply block them and there goes their chance in attempting to change my mind. If someone was willing to actually engage with my argument and ask for clarification if needed, they'd atleast have a chance in attempting to influence my thinking. I don't think I'm right about everything and there's several things I've changed my mind about because of good counter-arguments. I simply just don't engage with people who debate in bad faith.
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.
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.
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?
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.
And you thought it was appropriate to highlight this point on a thread mourning those losses? On top of that, you were surprised when people rebuked you for it?
I believe in truth and I'll speak it even when I know it to be unpopular. And on top of that I was replying to another user that was already making the same point.
I wasn't the least surprised by the response to it. That was highly predictable.
Based on your responses to me and others on this thread I would say it's no wonder you enjoy chatting with bots as opposed to humans.
You have a severe lack of empathy on even the most basic topics. In a discussion surrounding the thousands of deaths in an unprovoked attack the only response you could muster was "Civilian deaths are only issue for the western nations. Not to these extremists. Being martyred lands them into heaven.". You seem to be operating under some delusion that these people in a different country and culture mourn their losses differently than you when human loss is universal. These aren't martyrs, they're human casualties you so casually wrote off for the sake of some kind of "truth" you keep claiming is there. You hide your emotional coldness and lack of empathy behind this "truth" veil to protect yourself from actually challenging yourself and acknowledging your fundamental lack of emotional intelligence.
The other thing that stood out to me is your complete lack of self reflection. You told another user on this thread that you've blocked 500+ people on Lemmy. Has it never once occurred in all those 500+ clicks of the block button that you might be the problem? That number of blocks is not normal. No matter which way you put it. All you've done is isolate yourself from others with a different worldview just because they hurt your feelings. You profile says you're open to debate and discussion but your actions and words are telling me a whole other story.
You created this thread as some kind of self-pity party to get people to empathize with you but after this exchange and the others I've seen all I see is an asshole crying victim because they can't see why people don't respect you. Feel free to add me to your ever-growing list of blocked users on this site. But don't say I didn't give you a chance to empathize and understand you. I really really did. And you failed horribly at it at every turn.
If you want to keep going with this, then please pick one of those things you mentioned above and I'll respond to it. I can't handle multiple separate topics at the same time and I don't know which one of them you feel is the strongest argument / claim.
Nothing I said in my above comment was an argument. It was a statement. You made this post lamenting on how you're mistreated, but after our conversation and reading a few others you've had, I can safely say you're not some kind of innocent victim of online hate. You're just an inconsiderate asshole who can't stand when you're being treated the same way you treat others.
Alright, well thanks for your feedback then and take care.
Personally, I wouldn't consider online debates as debating a person. The reason being is you have no idea the person you're having this conversation with is a 12 year old with too much time on their hands or a 30 year old working at a troll farm. Even if they were a genuine person you're debating with, sites like Lemmy enable assholes to actually be assholes. They can say things here that would have them socially shunned or even assaulted in real life with virtually no consequence. I've had debates with individuals on this site that I actually liked, but more often than not, I was just debating assholes. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're actually interested in discussing topics, try doing it with people in your life instead of online. Doesn't have to be a debate even. You can just ask how they feel about a certain topic and talk about it together. Doscussing/debating online isn't a bad thing. Just be prepared for more assholes given the medium.
Finding people interested in talking about the topics I'm actually interested is really, really hard in real life. Obviously I'd prefer it that way too but easier said than done. I do have good conversations and debates with people online too but I just need to go thru quite the few assholes before finding one that's actually doing it in good faith.
What subjects are you talking about that people assume views you don't have? Politics?
My message history is open for anyone to read. In general I don't discuss politics but occasionally that too.
People do it all the time regardless of subject. For example, when discussing LLMs: