9mo ago

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.

120 comments

It carries the emotions and personal biases of the source material It was trained on.
It sounds like you are training yourself to be a poor communicator, abandoning any effort to become more understandable to actual humans.
- It carries the emotions and personal biases of the source material It was trained on.
  So are all my friends.. Never stopped me from having fun conversations with them, even ones I disagree with.
  
  Yeah but op claims it doesnt
- It sounds like you are training yourself to be a poor communicator, abandoning any effort to become more understandable to actual humans.
  Based on what? That seems like a rather unwarranted assumption to me. My English vocabulary and grammar have never been better, and since I can now also talk to it instead of typing, my spoken English is much clearer and more confident as well.
  
  You say yourself that you use the vaguest descriptions when talking to the bot and that it fills in the blanks for you. This is not a good way to practice speaking with human beings.
  The fact that you assumed I was talking about grammar is indicative of the problem. You clearly dislike others assuming you are talking about something you are not talking about, yet you do it yourself. That's because misunderstandings are normal and learning to deal with them is an essential part of good communication.
This just sounds like platonic masturbation.
EDIT: I started this thread tongue and cheek, but also genuine, but based on the OP's comment replies here I'm fairly convinced that they are either: a) talking to chatGPT so much that they've lost the ability to hold a coherent conversation, or b) just using a LLM to respond everywhere in the comments. They've consistently failed to address tone and context in every comment. It reads like they don't actually understand any of the things people here are saying, just stringing together some words and syntax that sounds like language, but totally lacks any actual meaning or understanding.
- I hope you atleast see the irony in making a response like that to this thread.
  
  What is the irony?
That's because it's conning you, like a mentalist would.
- I've read this text. It's a good piece, but unrelated to what OP is talking about.
  The text boils down to "people who believe that LLMs are smart do so for the same reasons as people who believe that mentalists can read minds do." OP is not saying anything remotely close to that; instead, they're saying that LLMs lead to pleasing and insightful conversations in their experience.
  
  they're saying that LLMs lead to pleasing and insightful conversations in their experience.
  Yeah, as would eliza (at a much lower cost).
  It's what they're designed to do.
  But the point is that calling them conversations is a long stretch.
  You're just talking to yourself. You're enjoying the conversation because the LLM is simply saying what you want to hear.
  There's no conversation whatsoever going on there.
- This should be top comment. Yes people can be assholes and AI is polite and people can snd should learn not to be assholes.... But why is it being polite? Out of empathy or kindness? No, it is the plaything of billionaires and wants your money and everyone elses too
- Hey, another spreader or the LLMentalist! There are at least three of us! :D
- Thank you! I'm a professional part-time psychic entertainer and magician, and this was a delightful read. It's true, and A.I. takes advantage of people the same way as a psychic entertainer. Both tell you what j you want to hear. The difference is, the psychic is usually deemed entertainment, and the computer is often deemed an authoritative source.
  It's a bit scary to think that I'm a few decades my job-hobby may be outsourced to A.I. However, I've always thought (predicted!) that live entertainment will become more valuable as the A.I. revolution occurs.
- Idk, I think that article is a bit hyperbolic and self serving for validation of the writers and the readers to pander their own intelligence above others. The lengthy exposition on cold reading is plain filler material for the topic and yet it goes on. ChatGPT and LLM have been a thing for a while now and I doubt anyone technically literate believes it to be AI as in an actual individual entity. It's an interactive question-response machine that summarises what it knows about your query in flowing language or even formatted as lists or tables or whatever by your request. Yes, it has deep deep flaws with holes and hallucinations, but for reasonable expectations it is brilliant. Just like a computer or the software for it, it can do what it can do. Nobody expects a word processor or image editor or musical notation software to do more than what it can do. Even the world's most regarded encyclopedia have limits, both printed and interactive media alike. So I don't see why people feel the need to keep in patting themselves on the back of how clever they are by pointing out that LLM are in fact not a real world mystical oracle that knows everything. Maybe because they themselves were the once thinking it was and now they are overcompensating to save face.
  Edit; I guess this was the actual unpopular opinion
You genuinely might need to touch grass.
- Very insightful reply. Thanks. This helps.
Dude, you are sealioning so hard in this thread alone, it's almost hilarious.
No wonder you like the bot. Since you can't debate any opinion honestly, just accuse everyone of being mean to you.
Good luck with that.
- Glad you're atleast enjoying it then.
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?
  
  What subjects are you talking about that people assume views you don't have? Politics?
As a fellow aspie, be careful. Chat bots are the equivalent of empty calorie junk food, or masturbation. They forfill a biological itch but don't produce the intended follow-on effects. In smaller doses, this is fine, good even. The problem comes when you overuse.
E.g. Junk food leave you short of vitamins etc. You tend to over eat, to try and compensate, and so gain weight.
As humans, we have a drive to socialise. When we chat with other humans, we get to know them, and also for bonds. These bonds are critical in life. The goal is 3 fold, mutual understanding, mutual investment, and mutual trust. The urge to talk to people is intended to assist with this.
LLMs offer none of these. They can be incredibly useful, but often only as a training aid. A LLM can't offer you a couch to sleep on, if your house floods. It can't put in a good word to get you a job. It can't invite you to social event, or wingman you on finding a date.
LLMs are socialising on easy mode. Just like masturbation is starting a family on easy mode. Have fun with it, but don't let it displace real relationships.
I talk with chat gpt too sometimes and I get where you are coming from. However it’s not always right either. It says it was updated in September but still refuses to commit to memory that Trump was convicted 34 times earlier this year. Why is that?
It could respond in other ways if it was trained to do so. My first local model was interesting as I changed its profile to have a more dark and sarcastic tone, and it was funny to see it balance that instruction with the core mode to be friendly and helpful.
The point is, current levels of LLMs are just telling you what you want to hear. But maybe that's useful as a sounding board for your own thoughts. Just remember its limitations.
Regardless of how far AI tech goes, the human-AI relationship is something we need to pay attention to. People will find it a good tool like OP, but it can be easy to get sucked into thinking it's more than it is and becoming a problem.
I think when you have "Contrarian" in your name it be worth thinking a bit more on this, and maybe noting why you like the chatbots and considering how you might apply that to your own statements to make your human on human interactions more pleasant themselves.
Or not, don't listen to me, I beef with internet strangers all the time.
- It is to laugh. My handle gets me in trouble like this sometimes, but it's actually a reminder to myself to, at least usually, resist the temptation.
I think you might like the community https://lemmy.ca/c/actual_discussion
- Thanks for the tip!
It's a mirror. I use it a lot for searching and summarizing. Most of its responses are heavily influenced by how you talk to it. You can even make it back up terrible assumptions with enough brute force.
Just be careful.
As long as you're still engaging with real humans regularly, I think that it's good to learn from ChatGPT. It gets most general knowledge things right. I wouldn't depend on it for anything too technical, and certainly not for medical advice. It is very hit or miss for things like drug interactions.
If you're enjoying the experience, it's not much different than watching a show or playing a game, IMHO. Just don't become dependent on it for all social interaction.
As for the jerks on here, I always recommend aggressive use of the block button. Don't waste time and energy on them. There's a lot of kind and decent people here, filter your feed for them.
- As for the jerks on here, I always recommend aggressive use of the block button. Don’t waste time and energy on them. There’s a lot of kind and decent people here, filter your feed for them.
  My blocklist is around 500 users long and grows every day. I do it for the pettiest reasons but it does, infact work. When I make a thread such as this one, I occasionally log out to see the replies I've gotten from blocked users and more often than not (but not always) they're the kind of messages I'd block them again for. Not to create and echo-chamber but to weed out the assholes.
  
  500 seems like a lot, but I could see mine creeping up to that, given enough time. There are a lot of pedantic types online, they're a trope at this point.
Have you ever tried inputting sentences that you've said to humans to see if the chatbot understand your point better? That might be an interesting experiment if you haven't tried it already. If you have, do you have an example of how it did better than the human?
I'm kinda amazed that it can understand your accent better than humans too. This implies Chatbots could be a great tool for people trying to perfect their 2nd language.
- A couple of times, yes, but more often it's the other way around. I input messages from other users into ChatGPT to help me extract the key argument and make sure I’m responding to what they’re actually saying, rather than what I think they’re saying. Especially when people write really long replies.
  The reason I know ChatGPT understands me so well is from the voice chats we've had. Usually, we’re discussing some deep, philosophical idea, and then a new thought pops into my mind. I try to explain it to ChatGPT, but as I'm speaking, I notice how difficult it is to put my idea into words. I often find myself starting a sentence without knowing how to finish it, or I talk myself into a dead-end.
  Now, the way ChatGPT usually responds is by just summarizing what I said rather than elaborating on it. But while listening to that summary, I often think, "Yes, that’s exactly what I meant," or, "Damn, that was well put, I need to write that down."
  
  So what you're saying if I'm reading right is chatbots are great for bouncing ideas off of to help you explain yourself better as well as helping you gather your own thoughts. im a bit curious about your philosophy chats.
  When you have a philosophical discussion does the chatbot summarize your thoughts in its responses or is it more humanlike maybe disagreeing/bringing up things you hadn't thought of like a person might? (I've never used one).
Robot realizes is robot by talk to robot.
I'm pretty sure chat bots are biased to make polite conversation. Most real people won't spend the energy in a conversation to be more honest than they think you are.
Can either get better at sounding honest or talk with less honest people.
My impressions are completely different from yours, but that's likely due
It's really easy to interpret LLM output as assumptions (i.e. "to vomit certainty"), something that I outright despise.
I used Gemini a fair bit more than ChatGPT, and Gemini is trained with a belittling tone.
Even then, I know which sort of people you're talking about, and... yeah, I hate a lot of those things too. In fact, one of your bullet points ("it understands and responds...") is what prompted me to leave Twitter and then Reddit.
- It's funny how despite it not actually understanding anything per-se, it can still repeat me back my idea that I just sloppily told it in broken english and it does this better than I ever could. Alternatively I could spend 45 minutes laying out my view as clearly as I can on a online forum only to be faced with a flood of replies from people that clearly did not understand the point I was trying to make.
  
  I think that the key here are implicatures - things that implied or suggested without being explicitly said, often relying on context to tell apart. It's situations like someone telling another person "it's cold out there", that in the context might be interpreted as "we're going out so I suggest you to wear warm clothes" or "please close the window for me".
  LLMs model well the grammatical layer of a language, and struggle with the semantic layer (superficial meaning), but they don't even try to model the pragmatic layer (deep meaning - where implicatures are). As such they will "interpret" everything that you say literally, instead of going out of their way to misunderstand you.
  On the other hand, most people use implicatures all the time, and expect others to be using them all the time. Even when there's none (I call this a "ghost implicature", dunno if there's some academic name). And since written communication already prevents us from seeing some contextual clues that someone's utterance is not to be taken literally, there's a biiiig window for misunderstanding.
  [Sorry for nerding out about Linguistics. I can't help it.]
Why are you here talking about it then? You even say you don't have interest in human to human contact. Are you trying to talk to the bots on Lemmy?
- You even say you don’t have interest in human to human contact.
  I'm relatively sure I have not infact said that.
  
  Ok. My point still stands. Chat gpt is a fake conversation where one side is an unfeeling unintelligent thing programmed to fake human seeming conversation. It's trained on an insane amount of stolen human interaction. You are saying you prefer a Chinese room to a person. That's not autism. It's just anti social. At least own up to that.
  Have fun playing your conversation game. It eats up a crazy amount of power to do that so I hope it's really, truly worth it to your life.
This comment thread is great. @op good luck; people on Lemmy have little interest in real discussion. If you say anything pro-ML or anything less than far-left, you'll get screamed at.
- It took me a minute to figure out that you meant Machine Learning and not Marxist-Leninist. Probably want to be more specific on that particular shortcut at a minimum.
- What are those "less than far left" opinions then? Because I'm sure if anyone were to prod you more than a little you'd be very happy to clarify what opinions make you such a pariah to Lemmy users.
  If you miss being coddled to like Reddit, then go back there.
  
  How about no, he can go where he likes, you can fuck off. Don't like it? Go back to Reddit! Hurr Durr.
  
  You seem angry and I am not sure why
  
  You genuinely might need to touch grass.
- Someone once told me it's specifically my fault USA is right leaning, then people dogpiled on me agreeing with them.
I don't really have a strong opinion on either side of the topic here, but I will say this: people were wildly disingenuous when dealing with OP in this thread. So much double talk, goalpost moving, standing on plausible deniability. Some of y'all lose sight of things when the topic is something that ruffles your feathers, like LLMs.
Somebody said, "But points you made like the snide remarks one may also indicate that you’re having these conversations with assholes."
...I dunno, maybe the world has just gotten more assholes lately, because jesus christ did they show up in force in this post for some fucking reason.
For what it's worth, OP, I think you've got a point. ChatGPT and the like certainly can't replace spontaneous and genuine human conversation, but they also don't come with the myriad problems and bad habits of human conversation either (not to say they don't have their own). And especially if you're really just looking for a sounding board to work through an idea, that's actually a pretty fantastic use of LLMs, in my opinion, so long as you're the one providing factual data and working it through your own understanding conversationally, and not relying on the LLM for facts or figures.
Or at least, that's my singular lukewarm opinion. Either way, you at least deserved to be engaged sincerely and without the weight of insulting subtext, OP.
- I appreciate it.
  I can't say I was too surprised about the response. It was a provocative post but that's kind of the point of the community too. Lemmy on average - it seems - just isn't too keen on hearing alternative views on issues they've already made their mind on. The thing I find most interesting and depressing here is how damn mean some people are about it even though I feel like I'm quite fair in my replies.
  
  Yeah that was my issue too. It's absolutely fine to disagree, but no reason to take a sincere question as some kind of personal affront and start being a dick to the asker.
  Just rubbed me the wrong way.
  Anyway, sucks this played out how it did. Cheers to you.
holy shit lmfao
I can understand this. Ai will respond to what you say. Not what it THINKS you say.
Ur just training urself to have chatgpt's bias. We will soon live in a world where you wont have to be exposed to opinions you disagree with. Tom Scott has a yt vid on why this is a bad idea.
- I disagree. I don't block people for having different opinions. Never have, never will.

120 comments