Nelots

• Humans are born of the universe.
• Humans are sentient.
• Therefore, the universe is sentient.

Your conclusion does not follow your premises. Just because one thing has an attribute does not mean the thing that came before it has that same attribute. See:

• Humans are born of the universe.
• Humans are supposed to have two arms and two legs.
• Therefore, the universe is supposed to have two arms and two legs.

human response to existential dread

I realize this was likely not intended, but you've ironically removed most of the nuance in why religions came to exist in this statement lol.

But you've certainly directly interacted with all of them in some form or another.

I don't think sentient is the word you're looking for, as animals have sentience.

Shame it takes so long to get to the good stuff.

Ah, I couldn't read the word 'okay'. I also had trouble reading the word with an arrow pointing to the phone number, but I'm pretty sure it just says 'nice'.

Surprisingly, I went to the original source and it's just as illegible.

Well considering most gods have committed an atrocity or twelve, I say this is actually just further evidence the meme is correct. Damned machines don't even know how to be petty assholes, how unholy of them.

Again, had I responded to the original question, I would have just left a link and that would have been it. Compare that to their comment, where they had to preface it with them asking ChatGPT and not knowing if it was even valid, on top of regurgitating what it said in their own words, and its clear they put more effort in than necessary for what I would consider a less helpful answer.

My response was simply meant to point this out, and that's obviously going to take more effort. I never did and never intended to compare their comment to my whole argument.

I agree the argument is pretty pointless though, it was a simple statement and I even said I appreciated that they did put in some effort and answered the question. Perhaps I should have emphasized that more in my original comment.

Edit: I don't actually care enough to have a full-blown argument over this. Especially not one seeping into mild personal attacks territory.

I have no issue with ChatGPT, I simply dislike when people rely on it as their first and only source and give unhelpful answers because of it. (Edit: Not to mention ChatGPT can be quite dangerous when used this way. Its a bad habit that shouldn't be encouraged.)

And I wouldn't say I put in more effort in my response considering the amount of caveats they added in theirs about how they asked chatgpt and have no idea if its real. Our responses were similar in length, mine is just all one paragraph and so looks bigger. If I had responded to the original question, I would have just dropped a link and that would have been the end of it.

On one hand, I can appreciate you doing some work. On the other hand, an actual fundraiser was my first result upon googling "Fred Hampton gravestone fundraiser", which is far quicker than asking ChatGPT would have been. You put in extra effort for worse results (your link has nothing to do with his grave, and instead seeks landmark status for his home). So I believe "do less next time" is a pretty apt response.

Edit: I've emboldened a portion of this comment to emphasize it more. I was not intending to start a whole argument over this. It was meant to be a simple criticism of the method.

Well you've convinced me, that's how I'll be spelling it from now on.