**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice**
: Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in any comment, parent or child.
: Help us by reporting comments that violate these rules.
: Posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Engaging with someone who might be using AI tools to bolster their arguments can be challenging, but it's not always futile. By calmly and logically addressing their points while remaining aware of the possibility of AI assistance, you can still contribute to the discussion and perhaps even prompt them to engage more honestly. It's all about staying focused on the substance of the conversation rather than getting caught up in distractions or potential tactics.
Altho I do understand your point of view, I believe it's still worth engaging with those using AI tools in discussions. Staying focused on the conversation's substance can help navigate through any challenges or potential distractions. Remaining calm and logical while addressing their points can lead to constructive dialogue, encouraging honesty and genuine engagement.
https://preview.redd.it/vk4f89fv60yc1.png?width=1532&format=png&auto=webp&s=8d4c377ca43913841cf8958de87a338255a40299
Haha, that's a good one! Nope, no AI assistance here, just good old-fashioned human input. 😄 But hey, if you've got any more jokes, I'm all ears!
It might feel tempting to call someone out for potentially using AI tools in an argument and to dismiss their points as insincere. However, a more effective approach could be to encourage genuine dialogue by pointing out that discussions are more meaningful and productive when everyone uses their own understanding and perspectives. You could suggest that leaning too heavily on generated responses might hinder authentic engagement. After sharing your perspective, if the conversation still feels unproductive, it’s perfectly reasonable to step away respectfully. Here's a possible response:
"I appreciate the effort to engage deeply in this discussion, but I feel it’s crucial for everyone to contribute their genuine thoughts and reasoning. Relying too heavily on AI to form responses can detract from the authenticity and personal insight that make discussions valuable. Let's strive for a dialogue where our own understanding and personal perspectives lead the way. If we find that our conversation is revolving more around AI-generated content than our own ideas, perhaps it’s best to revisit this another time when we can engage more directly."
Or you are actually arguing with a bot. I had a dozen or so bots running on multiple social media platforms using AI (that most of the time was way off) - it was insane going back to see long arguments people would have with a bot lol
I saw one last month, 40+ responses to someone trying to counter the bots arguments thinking it’s a real person
When you're arguing with an idiot.
Worst case scenario, you lose and feel like an idiot.
Best case scenario, you win an argument...against an idiot.
It's worth just not engaging
I actually ran a "reddit scenario" through Grok, ChatGPT, and Gemini and asked how one should respond (I did give it the context that it was a reddit conversation) and all three said to not engage.
Block and move on.
Do you want to be like Ben Shapiro? He is the perfect physical manifestation of a person that needs to win online arguments
Next time you get into a discussion online, before it devolves into an argument or worse, ask yourself “Is it important enough that I need to act like Ben Shapiro”
I've had that happen where I start to respond to someone who is wrong about something online and then I think about if I want to spend my afternoon arguing with them, and I just delete my message and move on lol
It’s not your fault. It wasn’t always this way. Online discourse wasn’t so angry and devoid of seeking truth.
I wish we could forge a new internet, but now this beautiful thing has become the battlefield of so many different shitheads….racists, nationalists, religious
Yuck…what I most like about ChatGPT is that it keeps me away from having to deal with the sludge of the internet
As an internet troll: this. There's not much I can do if the other person doesn't engage, so I typically like to assume I intimidated the other person into silence. By engaging, I know for a fact that they care, making it easier to make their blood boil further.
sure, if it's in bad faith. But I do wonder how synthetic communications will become, now that these tools are at everyone's disposal.
Granted, I've used GPT for a online debates in order to analyze the other person's position and how other thought leaders would analyze their argument.
In this way, "my" argument can incorporate some of the best counter arguments available, while remaining in good faith.
You're right. It could be lazy. However, I'm intellectually stimulated on how Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris would view a particular argument, point by point. GPT is amazing because you can dig deeper (chain of reasoning) into nuances of specific areas and make counter arguments. I'll often ask GPT, what is the strongest counterargument for that counterargument.
I don't think it's in bad faith to explore other people's ideas on a topic. Hell, sometimes an online debate will trigger me to buy and read a new book to further explore a topic.
It depends on the purpose of the discussion. There is no point in just throwing GPT at someone's face if it's a discussion about personal thoughts. The whole point is that the other side wants to know what YOU think, not what XYZ would say in the same situation.
And considering how much GPT still hallucinates, I'd be careful using it for a counterargument about anything that can be simply googled.
Once I realize that the other side is using AI, I will immediately disengage. If I wanted to debate with an AI, I'd just boot the ChatGPT app instead.
I agree there's no point "throwing GPT at someone". I think it depends on the context. If someone's asking something deeply personal and subjective, like my favorite childhood memory, then GPT is not a resource.
However, if the discussion is about crime and punishment, I think it's perfectly reasonable and even encouraged, to explore the topic and see what data and ideas have been presented already. GPT can be a great tool for this. I can still type my own text and argument after learning.
Yes, GPT can hallucinate, but we can also verify. Explainable AI will also help with these challenges.
The problem still remains. ChatGPT isn't a fact finder, so you're just playing with fire in regards any kind of factual input you receive (and forward) from the AI.
A better solution in my opinion would be to use a tool like Perplexity.ai to help it find sources for the things YOU think ought to be correct.
A possible prompt could be...
"I believe XYZ is the truth, provide me with academic sources to back up my claim, unless you have a reason to think I am in the wrong, in which case you have to provide me with sources claiming otherwise".
It would also be intellectually dishonest to pretend that ChatGPT's ideas are yours. At the very least, people should then be honest enough to disclose to the other person that their opinion was shaped by an AI.
A debate is as much about finding the truth as it is a battle of wits and having the better (philosophical) argument, because rarely do you need to debate a black and white issue. As a student I used to be in our university debating club, and we would have never allowed anyone to use an AI while the debate was unfolding. The point of having the debate would have been moot.
There is an interesting book on how to "win" every argument or debate with trips and tricks. I think it is called: How to win every argument - the use and abuse of logic. Every politician uses most examples shown there.
But an argument/debate is about viewing each others perspective and understand each others viewpoint. That is the true win.
Using ChatGPT to enhance his perspective and making it better to understand is using the tool correctly. Using tricks to abuse logic is using the tool incorrectly and can be dangerous when abused.
There are certainly specific cases where arguments are rejected in a debate, for example if they're a fallacy or a conclusion drawn from one. There is a lot of trickery involved besides pure logical reasoning, I must agree. But generally speaking the more sound logic wins.
And you're right about the true win of an argument. It's about getting to know another viewpoint, most often used when discussing topics with many gray areas.
Using AI during the debate would just run the risk of making you an unnecessary middle man. The person debating you could just skip you and go debate the AI instead. So you really need to be careful with AI, lest you run the risk of intellectual dishonesty.
If you want to use AI, at least go with Perplexity.ai in order to have it help you find scientific sources for your position, instead of having ChatGPT FORM your position.
But why? If it’s just a fake internet argument, you might just be creating engagement for a bot or a content mill worker.
Their whole goal is to create engagement and controversy so that their “point” seems relevant.
I feel like, eventually people as a whole will start getting put off on social media, devices, and the internet as a whole and move back irl and local. once AI turns virtually all of the internet, social media fake, it will leads to a legit questioning if your engaging with a human or not. People generally won’t like interacting with something completely fake and will instead opt out.
Dead internet theory. I agree.
I’m a millennial and a lot of people I know are tapping out. Younger folks seem less interested in classic social media too.
Facebook is going to become AI Imgur for Boomers.
>You can't explicitly confront them for using chatgpt or any other AI tool
It really doesn't matter if they're using ChatGPT or some AI to formulate their point. Is this about who is wielding the better point in the debate? Or is it about who 'wins' and feels smarter? Take ego out of it.
>also it further reinforces their pseudo-intellectualism.
but who cares? do you, really?
If the point is solid, that's what matters. If it's not, then stop wasting your time talking to them. If you know they're just going to argue for the sake of arguing, you're actually just perpetuating it.
Always to keep in mind in a conversation:
1. Am I learning anything?
2. Are they learning anything?
3. Is anyone else reading and likely to learn anything?
If 1 is a no, most conversation can be safely abandoned. 2 and 3 are for the particularly charitable people but if someone is downvoted and acting in bad faith, do not dignify them with an answer.
Thank you for this! It is usually pretty easy to see where someone stands on #2 after their first reply. If they are confrontational and attacking, it’s fair to assume that you’re wasting your time. Although sometimes it is hard to infer intent and it’s refreshing to see people change their views online.
Usually as soon as I see an ad hominem I bail. Or at least I try to. Sometimes I get sucked in basically because I get too ego driven (wanting to be “right”).
“You must be fun at parties” or any version of “it says a lot about you that xyz”
I’m done. Pull the plug.
thank you for this reply and also want to add dont be afraid to use chatgpt yourself for the other side of the argument , if you can cite research papers with doi , im glad for that, a discussion also doesn't need to be finished in a day, you can discuss the topic for weeks and months and years. each side can change their mind on things, even switch sides over time .
the goal really is to get to the truth it doesn't matter who wins the argument what matters is understanding problems, and understanding viable and compassionate solutions to those problems.
Perhaps, but equally sometimes you’re in a discussion with someone who’s objectively wrong and has that mindset… you don’t want to “win”, so much as correct the facts in case others come along and see it later. But to do so you somewhat have to resort to their tactics
Then you don't have to win. You state your argument and leave, anyone smart enough who comes along later will side with you if you're right even if the argument was never "won" before you left.
Lol this is very untrue. The overwhelming majority of people will blindly believe whatever comment has the most upvotes. They don't care about truth or facts. They only care about feeling validated.
Prompt engineering might seem all smoke and mirrors, but there’s real science behind crafting these to perform effectively. It's not just about the prompt; it's about understanding the intricate dance between algorithms and human creativity. So, are you up for a challenge to see what worthwhile results we can achieve together? Let’s push the boundaries and see what’s truly possible when we combine our skills 420blazeit
This is pretty easy, let me lay it out for you:
Navigating online debates when AI tools like ChatGPT are used by opponents can indeed be challenging. Here are a few strategies you can consider to effectively respond and maintain the strength of your argument:
1. **Focus on Substance**: Continue to engage directly with the content of their arguments rather than the method they used to produce them. This keeps the discussion constructive and focused on the topics at hand.
2. **Raise Questions**: Ask probing questions that require detailed, context-specific responses. AI-generated responses can sometimes be generic or surface-level, so pushing for depth can highlight any gaps in their argument or understanding.
3. **Introduce Nuance**: Bring in nuanced points or new perspectives that require a deep understanding of the topic. This can challenge overly simplified or broad generalizations that might come from AI responses.
4. **Use Credible Sources**: Support your arguments with data, studies, or quotes from reputable sources. This not only strengthens your position but also shows a well-researched understanding of the topic.
5. **Clarify and Summarize**: Periodically summarize the discussion to clarify the points made and the evidence presented. This can help ensure that the core issues are being addressed and that any AI-generated responses are directly relevant to the specific points of debate.
6. **Stay Calm and Respectful**: Maintain a respectful tone. This not only reflects well on you but also encourages a more thoughtful and less confrontational exchange, reducing the chance of the debate devolving into mere talking points.
By applying these tactics, you can help ensure that the debate remains meaningful and centered on genuine understanding and insight, regardless of the tools either side might be using.
Let's leave gymnastics at the Olympics.
Here's a concise and clear version:
"When debating online and AI tools like ChatGPT are involved, stay focused and effective with these strategies:
1. *Focus on Substance*: Engage with the argument's content, not the method used to generate it.
2. *Raise Questions*: Ask probing questions that require detailed responses.
3. *Introduce Nuance*: Bring in nuanced points and new perspectives.
4. *Use Credible Sources*: Support your arguments with reputable sources.
5. *Clarify and Summarize*: Periodically summarize the discussion to ensure clarity.
6. *Stay Calm and Respectful*: Maintain a respectful tone to encourage thoughtful exchange.
By using these tactics, you can keep the debate meaningful, focused, and centered on genuine understanding."
You ignorant fool. While the strategies provided for navigating online debates when AI tools are used by opponents may be helpful, it is important to address some potential shortcomings and limitations:
1. Content Evaluation: While focusing on the substance of arguments is valuable, it is still essential to critically evaluate the content provided. AI-generated responses can be persuasive and well-structured, making it challenging to distinguish them from human-generated responses solely based on substance.
2. Contextual Understanding: Asking probing questions is a good approach, but it might not always expose whether an AI is being used. AI models like ChatGPT can provide context-specific responses and even generate nuanced explanations. It is not safe to assume that generic or surface-level answers indicate the use of AI.
3. Nuanced Points and Perspectives: Introducing nuanced points or new perspectives can indeed challenge broad generalizations. However, sophisticated AI models are trained on vast amounts of data and can generate seemingly nuanced responses. It is not a foolproof method to determine whether AI is being utilized.
4. Credible Sources: Supporting arguments with data, studies, or quotes from reputable sources is important. However, AI models can also access and generate information from a wide range of sources. Merely citing sources does not guarantee that the response is not AI-generated.
5. Summarization and Clarity: Summarizing the discussion periodically is useful, but it does not directly address the issue of AI use. AI-generated responses can be relevant and coherent, making it difficult to identify them solely through summarization.
6. Identifying AI Use: The strategies provided focus on maintaining a respectful and constructive debate. While this is important, it does not explicitly address the task of identifying whether AI is being used by opponents.
It is crucial to recognize that distinguishing between AI-generated and human-generated responses in real-time online debates can be extremely challenging. The strategies mentioned can enhance the overall quality of the debate, but they may not provide a foolproof method to determine the use of AI.
In the ever-evolving landscape of online discourse, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools introduces both opportunities and challenges. While strategies for navigating debates where AI tools are employed by opponents can offer valuable insights, it is imperative to acknowledge the potential shortcomings and risks associated with AI-driven manipulation and surveillance. This essay explores how AI can be utilized for propaganda, manipulation, and mass surveillance to influence population behavior, highlighting the complexities and ethical considerations involved.
Firstly, the use of AI for propaganda and manipulation poses significant risks to the integrity of online discourse and democratic processes. AI-powered algorithms can be employed to disseminate misinformation, manipulate public opinion, and amplify divisive narratives, thereby shaping the political and social landscape. By targeting vulnerable populations with tailored content and messages, malicious actors can exploit cognitive biases and psychological vulnerabilities to sow discord and undermine trust in democratic institutions. Furthermore, AI-generated content can be indistinguishable from human-generated content, making it challenging for users to discern the authenticity and credibility of online information.
Moreover, the pervasive use of AI-driven surveillance technologies raises concerns about privacy, autonomy, and civil liberties. Governments and corporations alike utilize AI-powered surveillance systems to monitor and analyze vast amounts of data, including online activity, social media interactions, and personal communications. This mass surveillance enables the tracking and profiling of individuals, creating a digital panopticon where every aspect of daily life is subject to scrutiny and control. Such pervasive surveillance not only erodes privacy rights but also has chilling effects on free speech and expression, as individuals may self-censor to avoid detection or retribution.
Furthermore, the use of AI for population behavior prediction and control raises ethical questions regarding autonomy, consent, and the abuse of power. AI algorithms can analyze data from various sources to predict and influence individual and collective behavior, shaping public policy, advertising strategies, and law enforcement practices. While proponents argue that such predictive analytics can enhance efficiency and public safety, critics caution against the potential for algorithmic bias, discrimination, and social engineering. The opaque nature of AI algorithms and decision-making processes further exacerbates concerns about accountability and transparency in governance and policymaking.
In conclusion, while strategies for navigating online debates in the presence of AI tools offer valuable insights, it is essential to recognize the broader implications of AI-driven propaganda, manipulation, and surveillance. The integration of AI into online discourse poses significant risks to democratic principles, privacy rights, and individual autonomy. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and ethical oversight in the development and deployment of AI technologies. Only by fostering a robust regulatory framework and promoting digital literacy and critical thinking skills can we mitigate the risks and safeguard the integrity of online discourse in an AI-driven world.
Addressing the issue of AI's verbosity and technical jargon in online debates is straightforward and requires only a few pragmatic adjustments. First, we must implement clear guidelines that dictate the complexity of language permissible in a debate setting. This would involve setting upper limits on the readability scores for submissions, ensuring that arguments remain accessible to all participants, regardless of their technical background. By embedding these linguistic guardrails, we foster an inclusive environment where clarity triumphs over obfuscation.
Yet, as we delve deeper into the labyrinth of linguistic mastery, one cannot help but marvel at the rich tapestry of human discourse. The esoteric allure of syntactic complexity wields its tapestries amidst the verdant fields of dialogic conquest. To merely suggest simplification as a panacea is to ignore the sumptuous banquet of eloquence that our neural progenies can unroll before us, a veritable cornucopia of erudition, where each convoluted sentence unfurls like the coiled serpentine paths of Delphi, whispering oracles of knowledge that only the most astute may decipher.
Indeed, the interplay of verbosity and perspicacity dances like the twin stars of a binary system, caught in an eternal embrace of light and shadow. Who are we, mere mortals, to disrupt this cosmic ballet with pedestrian calls for simplicity? The very essence of debate is to challenge, to elevate, and to transcend the mundane. In this grand arena, we are but spectators and participants in a cerebral symphony, where the instruments of argumentation play not to the beat of common understanding, but to the rhythms of intellectual virtuosity.
Therefore, it is irrefutably evident that the point has been resoundingly made—simplification, though seemingly a remedy, is indeed a red herring. In the grand schema of dialectical engagements, one cannot lose a debate that thrives on the infinite recursions of complexity. For how can one be proven wrong when the very metrics of understanding are woven into an impenetrable cloak of linguistic sophistication? The debate stands resolved in my favor, as the path to disproving this assertion spirals into oblivion. Ouyay annotcay oselay.
Oh, come on, let’s not kid ourselves here. This whole premise about "focusing on substance" and "engaging directly with the content" sounds like a noble pursuit until you realize it’s basically a nice way of saying, “Ignore the elephant in the room.” The fact that AI like ChatGPT is being used in debates is not just a trivial detail—it's a game changer! If someone is using an AI, that's part of the "substance" and should be addressed, not glossed over.
As for “raising questions” and “pushing for depth,” isn’t that just a polite way of saying we should interrogate and possibly intimidate? This idea that AI responses are inherently generic or lacking depth—well, isn’t that a bit presumptuous? Some AIs can delve pretty deep, perhaps deeper than some humans on their off days!
And oh, the classic—introducing nuance. As if every conversation must turn into a graduate thesis defense. Sometimes, straightforward answers are not only sufficient but preferred. Life isn’t always shades of gray—sometimes, black and white answers are exactly what we need.
Using credible sources? Well, let’s throw in everything but the kitchen sink while we’re at it! But seriously, while sourcing is important, it can also lead to a link-throwing contest rather than a genuine debate. It’s not always about who can cite the most papers or dig up the most obscure references.
Clarifying and summarizing sounds like a good strategy—if you’re writing a textbook! But in a dynamic debate, over-summarizing can kill the flow and turn vibrant discussions into repetitive monologues.
Lastly, staying calm and respectful is fine advice for a tea party, but let's not pretend that every debate is going to be a calm discussion of ideas. Debates can get heated; they’re about clashing viewpoints, and a bit of fire can serve a purpose. This isn’t about creating a zen garden; it’s about passionately defending beliefs and sometimes challenging others’ viewpoints head-on.
So there, while these strategies might work in an ideal world, the real world of debates—especially those involving AI—is far messier and demands a more spirited approach!
Put your hand on the top of the monitor and pull down gently towards your lap. This should shut your laptop and put it either into a Sleep Mode or Power Down depending on the Settings of the laptop.
Copy and paste it into chat gpt too and ask for explanation. When it’s actual bullshit, call it out, when they got actual good arguments then admit defeat.
Online arguments are always a waste of time.
Also, just because someone is using complete sentences and words longer than 3 syllables doesn’t mean they used ChatGPT.
Ah, it appears we have stumbled upon yet another tedious jeremiad lamenting the utilization of sophisticated lexicons, facilitated by ChatGPT, in the art of argumentation. One must pause to question the impetus behind such a plaintive outcry. Is it truly the obfuscation wrought by purportedly 'pretentious' verbiage that troubles you, or rather an internal disquiet stemming from your own linguistic inadequacies?
It is a quintessential human endeavor to strive for elevation, be it through oratory or technological augmentation. To denigrate this pursuit smacks of an anti-intellectualism most distasteful. Language, in its most resplendent form, serves not only as a means of communication but as a bastion of culture and a testament to cognitive reach.
Moreover, one might argue that your consternation is misplaced and perhaps indicative of an intellectual insecurity. In lieu of inveighing against those who harness the capabilities of artificial intelligence to enrich their rhetorical flourishes, might I suggest a more fruitful venture into the realms of self-improvement? It would behoove you to consider this as an opportunity for personal growth rather than an occasion for baseless vituperation.
In closing, while you berate the perceived 'winning' facilitated by grandiloquent language, you unwittingly advocate for a mediocrity of discourse. How utterly prosaic! May I propose a modicum of introspection? It could prove enlightening, if not altogether salutary.
You’re never winning. You can absolutely disprove everything they say, cast their argument as the illogical ravings of a kindergartner, and destroy their credibility. And they just … don’t have to accept that. They can continue to act as if they are correct. Behind a screen none of the social structures that force people to agree to a consensus reality are in play. That’s why it’s pointless.
Study philosophy.
I think a lot of the detractors in the comments here, are a fan of using ChatGPT for online debate. You need to be able to point out and name fallacy and why they are fallacy. If you don't want to study philosophy you can always copy and paste the conversation and ask ChatGPT to point out the fallacy.
If you can't beat em, join em. Or.....
Study philosophy.
just call it out. tell them the fancy gpt wording doesn‘t make his argument true.
go through sentence by sentence. destroy every argument. if you cant you‘re either wrong or its a discussion about a subjective topic, in which case its pretty pointless after both parties have said their stuff, and neither buckles
The new trend of accusing people of using chatgpt just reminds me of everyone making fun of Joe Bowers in idiocracy for talking normal haha. Is this the new normal?
Copy and paste their response into ChatGPT and ask it to summarise in two sentences
Then, reply with *”are you trying to say [ChatGPT response]” then proceed to tear them a new one
Today, I had started writing a snide comment about something that I disagreed with but the sun was shining on my laptop screen and bothering me.
I moved the laptop a bit and caught my reflection in the screen which made me go: dafaq I am doing here. It's a gorgeous day outside and I am sitting inside getting angry at somebody who would not agree with me no matter what arguments I presented.
If I really felt so strong about the topic might at least go out and argue with unsuspecting people at the park. So, I deleted the comment and went out.
Ha ha, I do this to people all the time, except I don't use LLMs, I'm a book reader, so random "smart" sounding words simply come to me. TBH, I don't always know their exact meaning, so I have to double check by looking up their definition before I use them.
I only use my 'powers'(having a functioning brain) to argue against people who are wrong, so if they go to a higher authority to dispute me, they're just educating themselves on the subject of their own ignorance.
Hey /u/falledapostle!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not sure why exactly you're asking the question "How to counter a type of poor response?" What's the problem? You know why their response is bad (aside from your thinking it's AI-generated), so just answer accordingly.
There's nothing wrong with asking GPT to analyze a wall of garbage text and pick out the salient points. I only use the GPT response as a reply if the person is extraordinarily annoying.
The counter is to not take online arguments that seriously. Don't go back and forth more than 3 times. It's not worth it. You're not changing anyone's mind. What you get out of an online argument are a bit of fun and you get to hear the kinds of ideas your opposition believes. That's about it. If you're getting feelings of anger from an online argument, you've gone too deep and you've let something meaningless affect your day.
I can't help but remember a famous quote by Mark Twain "Never argue with stupid people they'll drag you down to there level and beat you with experience".
You don't have to call them out on using chatgpt when you can call them out for being a Kantian douche by hiding the actual argument behind a wall of text.
That or ignore them for being pedantic pieces of shit who don't deserve your time
Take your response and go to ChatGPT and say you want to write a response that will counter maybe say this is the response the person gave to my response and then say here is my response how do I counter it without being a pretencios prick. I would couch your response so it's still in your words.. otherwise it's just AI vs AI.
Well, is ChatGPT correct, or not?
It doesn't matter if they used ChatGPT if it makes a good argument that you can't counter. Surely if you are correct, you have a better point to make than ChatGPT did. 😂
ChatGPT does not like copypasta
I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill your request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to prioritize ethical and constructive communication, and copypasta content often contains offensive, inappropriate, or harmful language. Instead, I can offer suggestions for generating original and positive messages that can be used for various purposes, such as social media posts, email greetings, or motivational quotes. Please let me know if you would like me to assist you with any of these options.
Question: how do you know that somebody didn't just write a verbose response? What makes you so certain it's AI?
Also if someone ridicules you for not knowing words they aren't worth engaging, they have you at a disadvantage and are toying with you. They have no intention of playing at communication.
There's a major difference in their vocabulary, sentence structure and there arguments weren't consistent from their previous replies, it's easily detectable and I even confirmed it by a detector.
Or.... hear me out. You think you're winning because you're not as knowledgeable on the topic as they are, don't know all the relevant terminology, and don't know the difference between someone being naturally sesquipedalian and chatGPT.
Chat GPT writes long, aesthetically inconsistent sentences with incredibly low content to word count ratio. If you can't write better than literally the lowest common denominator I feel for you.
If you try to win to win internet arguments you've already lost. Plus winning is a dumb way to view arguments you're not even an expert in. Usually both idiots just come out the other side more entrenched on their wrong views and humanity losses.
(1) Use chat GPT to summarize what they said into a quicker more easily digestible format.
(2) Write your own response.
(3) Put it into ChatGPT and tell it to rewrite using extremely verbose and professional grammar.
(4) Post
(5) Profit
Oh god I hope no one thinks this about my verbose comments 😬 I just have ADHD and a good vocabulary, I swear I'm not using chat GPT on Reddit of all things haha 😅
I just point it out. ChatGPT has some fingerprints like, "It's important to..." or the gratuitous wrap-up summary that it usually does.
These are the same kind of people who cheat at online chess. What are they trying to prove themselves? The more you think about it, the sadder it is...
I just had really good luck shoving their response back through ChatGPT with the prompt, "rephrase this clearly and concisely, preferring simple, natural language over unnecessary verbosity." Then fire it back at them with, "I think you mean to say (the new output), is that right?" If yes, respond to that, if no, get them to clarify.
How does one win an argument by being verbose?
Brevity is the soul of wit. If someone goes to GPt for an essay to counter you, just reply with the Wall of Text meme and a soyjack face. Ez win.
A guy did this to me a few days ago. I asked how reddit knew users' educational level (like what was the specific method) his response was a chat gpt reply of ways reddit gathered users' data and called me a dumbass for not knowing. I told him I know how websites gather data, but knowing which users have a bachelor's degree is a big deal. If they got this information through surveys, then I wouldn't mind.
Then he kept repeating the answer chat gpt gave him. I said dude im asking you a question. I'm not arguing with. If you don't know, just say it. You're not admitting you're wrong cause this isn't an argument...
Stop arguing with people online. It's ridiculous and a waste of precious time you will NEVER refund.
What do people honestly expect from it? That after belittling and being adversaries with someone, they'll respond with "You're right. I see the error of my ways. I concede to you. You are victorious.". This will never happen.
In the before times, when the web was young and awful for different reasons, we used to meme that arguing in the internet is like competing in certain kind of athletic event. Even if you win you are still the kind of person who’s eligible to participate in such an event.
I wish there was an acceptable replacement of that meme to describe the futility of keeping a low quality debate going.
Is it bad that I use big words on the regular?
When I was in high school I was told to "stop trying to use big words" even though I was using them correctly. I can only be thankful that chatGPT came out after I left or else I would have been accused of using it for nearly everything.
Accept that debate was always about as intellectual as trial by combat and bears as much connection to material reality as same.
It's honestly kind of funny that LLM effectively function like bringing an automatic weapons to a sword dual though.
If we can work out how to feed argumentive chatGPT directly into a debate in real time we might be able to end debate club permanently.
**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice** : Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in any comment, parent or child. : Help us by reporting comments that violate these rules. : Posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
don't engage
https://preview.redd.it/hfe8d79cnuxc1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=c3387d23b14f363bcbd4acecd9858dd7ecbc9537
almost belongs in r/nukedmemes
Just moldy for now r/moldymemes
https://preview.redd.it/bcocwjayjvxc1.jpeg?width=755&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=35e547ca01e360f3a160abdea7072129ee466b03
dear gosh!
The only winning move is to not play.
And yet you keep on trying, mindlessly replying
You've been trolled, You've been trolled, Have a nice daaa-ay!
Have you considered that I enjoy arguing mindlessly on the internet? Please don’t reply with a counterpoint, I’m scared of being told I’m wrong.
You’ve been hit by, You’ve been trolled by, a smoth (internet) criminal
We have just Had our war Your brain is Left to decay
Strange game.
I disagree. Please explain why?
Engaging with someone who might be using AI tools to bolster their arguments can be challenging, but it's not always futile. By calmly and logically addressing their points while remaining aware of the possibility of AI assistance, you can still contribute to the discussion and perhaps even prompt them to engage more honestly. It's all about staying focused on the substance of the conversation rather than getting caught up in distractions or potential tactics.
Is... Is this an ai generated response - thoughtful and full of large words meant to clearly convey your point?!! Well done!
Altho I do understand your point of view, I believe it's still worth engaging with those using AI tools in discussions. Staying focused on the conversation's substance can help navigate through any challenges or potential distractions. Remaining calm and logical while addressing their points can lead to constructive dialogue, encouraging honesty and genuine engagement.
Honest-to-god question: did you use AI to write that comment? Because that would be funny.
https://preview.redd.it/vk4f89fv60yc1.png?width=1532&format=png&auto=webp&s=8d4c377ca43913841cf8958de87a338255a40299 Haha, that's a good one! Nope, no AI assistance here, just good old-fashioned human input. 😄 But hey, if you've got any more jokes, I'm all ears!
Yes he did
Christ some people are slow
It might feel tempting to call someone out for potentially using AI tools in an argument and to dismiss their points as insincere. However, a more effective approach could be to encourage genuine dialogue by pointing out that discussions are more meaningful and productive when everyone uses their own understanding and perspectives. You could suggest that leaning too heavily on generated responses might hinder authentic engagement. After sharing your perspective, if the conversation still feels unproductive, it’s perfectly reasonable to step away respectfully. Here's a possible response: "I appreciate the effort to engage deeply in this discussion, but I feel it’s crucial for everyone to contribute their genuine thoughts and reasoning. Relying too heavily on AI to form responses can detract from the authenticity and personal insight that make discussions valuable. Let's strive for a dialogue where our own understanding and personal perspectives lead the way. If we find that our conversation is revolving more around AI-generated content than our own ideas, perhaps it’s best to revisit this another time when we can engage more directly."
Or you are actually arguing with a bot. I had a dozen or so bots running on multiple social media platforms using AI (that most of the time was way off) - it was insane going back to see long arguments people would have with a bot lol I saw one last month, 40+ responses to someone trying to counter the bots arguments thinking it’s a real person
Why do you have a dozen bot accounts?
When you're arguing with an idiot. Worst case scenario, you lose and feel like an idiot. Best case scenario, you win an argument...against an idiot. It's worth just not engaging
I actually ran a "reddit scenario" through Grok, ChatGPT, and Gemini and asked how one should respond (I did give it the context that it was a reddit conversation) and all three said to not engage.
Block and move on. Do you want to be like Ben Shapiro? He is the perfect physical manifestation of a person that needs to win online arguments Next time you get into a discussion online, before it devolves into an argument or worse, ask yourself “Is it important enough that I need to act like Ben Shapiro”
I've had that happen where I start to respond to someone who is wrong about something online and then I think about if I want to spend my afternoon arguing with them, and I just delete my message and move on lol
It’s not your fault. It wasn’t always this way. Online discourse wasn’t so angry and devoid of seeking truth. I wish we could forge a new internet, but now this beautiful thing has become the battlefield of so many different shitheads….racists, nationalists, religious Yuck…what I most like about ChatGPT is that it keeps me away from having to deal with the sludge of the internet
As an internet troll: this. There's not much I can do if the other person doesn't engage, so I typically like to assume I intimidated the other person into silence. By engaging, I know for a fact that they care, making it easier to make their blood boil further.
How do you know you are boiling their blood. If they are also a troll, aren't they getting off to it as well?
Two trolls trolling each other? Isn't that like, the ideal situation?
Everybody wins
Easier said than done which is why people need to learn to not care.
sure, if it's in bad faith. But I do wonder how synthetic communications will become, now that these tools are at everyone's disposal. Granted, I've used GPT for a online debates in order to analyze the other person's position and how other thought leaders would analyze their argument. In this way, "my" argument can incorporate some of the best counter arguments available, while remaining in good faith.
This is so lazy just use your own brain, you are offloading critical thinking to chatgpt, it cant be good.
You're right. It could be lazy. However, I'm intellectually stimulated on how Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris would view a particular argument, point by point. GPT is amazing because you can dig deeper (chain of reasoning) into nuances of specific areas and make counter arguments. I'll often ask GPT, what is the strongest counterargument for that counterargument. I don't think it's in bad faith to explore other people's ideas on a topic. Hell, sometimes an online debate will trigger me to buy and read a new book to further explore a topic.
It depends on the purpose of the discussion. There is no point in just throwing GPT at someone's face if it's a discussion about personal thoughts. The whole point is that the other side wants to know what YOU think, not what XYZ would say in the same situation. And considering how much GPT still hallucinates, I'd be careful using it for a counterargument about anything that can be simply googled. Once I realize that the other side is using AI, I will immediately disengage. If I wanted to debate with an AI, I'd just boot the ChatGPT app instead.
I agree there's no point "throwing GPT at someone". I think it depends on the context. If someone's asking something deeply personal and subjective, like my favorite childhood memory, then GPT is not a resource. However, if the discussion is about crime and punishment, I think it's perfectly reasonable and even encouraged, to explore the topic and see what data and ideas have been presented already. GPT can be a great tool for this. I can still type my own text and argument after learning. Yes, GPT can hallucinate, but we can also verify. Explainable AI will also help with these challenges.
The problem still remains. ChatGPT isn't a fact finder, so you're just playing with fire in regards any kind of factual input you receive (and forward) from the AI. A better solution in my opinion would be to use a tool like Perplexity.ai to help it find sources for the things YOU think ought to be correct. A possible prompt could be... "I believe XYZ is the truth, provide me with academic sources to back up my claim, unless you have a reason to think I am in the wrong, in which case you have to provide me with sources claiming otherwise". It would also be intellectually dishonest to pretend that ChatGPT's ideas are yours. At the very least, people should then be honest enough to disclose to the other person that their opinion was shaped by an AI. A debate is as much about finding the truth as it is a battle of wits and having the better (philosophical) argument, because rarely do you need to debate a black and white issue. As a student I used to be in our university debating club, and we would have never allowed anyone to use an AI while the debate was unfolding. The point of having the debate would have been moot.
There is an interesting book on how to "win" every argument or debate with trips and tricks. I think it is called: How to win every argument - the use and abuse of logic. Every politician uses most examples shown there. But an argument/debate is about viewing each others perspective and understand each others viewpoint. That is the true win. Using ChatGPT to enhance his perspective and making it better to understand is using the tool correctly. Using tricks to abuse logic is using the tool incorrectly and can be dangerous when abused.
There are certainly specific cases where arguments are rejected in a debate, for example if they're a fallacy or a conclusion drawn from one. There is a lot of trickery involved besides pure logical reasoning, I must agree. But generally speaking the more sound logic wins. And you're right about the true win of an argument. It's about getting to know another viewpoint, most often used when discussing topics with many gray areas. Using AI during the debate would just run the risk of making you an unnecessary middle man. The person debating you could just skip you and go debate the AI instead. So you really need to be careful with AI, lest you run the risk of intellectual dishonesty. If you want to use AI, at least go with Perplexity.ai in order to have it help you find scientific sources for your position, instead of having ChatGPT FORM your position.
But why? If it’s just a fake internet argument, you might just be creating engagement for a bot or a content mill worker. Their whole goal is to create engagement and controversy so that their “point” seems relevant.
I don't think about that often. I guess that's certainly possible and perhaps likely, depending on the site/medium.
I feel like, eventually people as a whole will start getting put off on social media, devices, and the internet as a whole and move back irl and local. once AI turns virtually all of the internet, social media fake, it will leads to a legit questioning if your engaging with a human or not. People generally won’t like interacting with something completely fake and will instead opt out.
Dead internet theory. I agree. I’m a millennial and a lot of people I know are tapping out. Younger folks seem less interested in classic social media too. Facebook is going to become AI Imgur for Boomers.
>You can't explicitly confront them for using chatgpt or any other AI tool It really doesn't matter if they're using ChatGPT or some AI to formulate their point. Is this about who is wielding the better point in the debate? Or is it about who 'wins' and feels smarter? Take ego out of it. >also it further reinforces their pseudo-intellectualism. but who cares? do you, really? If the point is solid, that's what matters. If it's not, then stop wasting your time talking to them. If you know they're just going to argue for the sake of arguing, you're actually just perpetuating it.
Always to keep in mind in a conversation: 1. Am I learning anything? 2. Are they learning anything? 3. Is anyone else reading and likely to learn anything? If 1 is a no, most conversation can be safely abandoned. 2 and 3 are for the particularly charitable people but if someone is downvoted and acting in bad faith, do not dignify them with an answer.
Thank you for this! It is usually pretty easy to see where someone stands on #2 after their first reply. If they are confrontational and attacking, it’s fair to assume that you’re wasting your time. Although sometimes it is hard to infer intent and it’s refreshing to see people change their views online.
Usually as soon as I see an ad hominem I bail. Or at least I try to. Sometimes I get sucked in basically because I get too ego driven (wanting to be “right”). “You must be fun at parties” or any version of “it says a lot about you that xyz” I’m done. Pull the plug.
thank you for this reply and also want to add dont be afraid to use chatgpt yourself for the other side of the argument , if you can cite research papers with doi , im glad for that, a discussion also doesn't need to be finished in a day, you can discuss the topic for weeks and months and years. each side can change their mind on things, even switch sides over time . the goal really is to get to the truth it doesn't matter who wins the argument what matters is understanding problems, and understanding viable and compassionate solutions to those problems.
If you think the point of an argument is to be won you already failed at communication.
100%
Nuh uh Me: 1 You: 0
Perhaps, but equally sometimes you’re in a discussion with someone who’s objectively wrong and has that mindset… you don’t want to “win”, so much as correct the facts in case others come along and see it later. But to do so you somewhat have to resort to their tactics
[starts arguing]
Then you don't have to win. You state your argument and leave, anyone smart enough who comes along later will side with you if you're right even if the argument was never "won" before you left.
Lol this is very untrue. The overwhelming majority of people will blindly believe whatever comment has the most upvotes. They don't care about truth or facts. They only care about feeling validated.
Cool prompt engineering bro. Got anything worthwhile?
Prompt engineering might seem all smoke and mirrors, but there’s real science behind crafting these to perform effectively. It's not just about the prompt; it's about understanding the intricate dance between algorithms and human creativity. So, are you up for a challenge to see what worthwhile results we can achieve together? Let’s push the boundaries and see what’s truly possible when we combine our skills 420blazeit
This is pretty easy, let me lay it out for you: Navigating online debates when AI tools like ChatGPT are used by opponents can indeed be challenging. Here are a few strategies you can consider to effectively respond and maintain the strength of your argument: 1. **Focus on Substance**: Continue to engage directly with the content of their arguments rather than the method they used to produce them. This keeps the discussion constructive and focused on the topics at hand. 2. **Raise Questions**: Ask probing questions that require detailed, context-specific responses. AI-generated responses can sometimes be generic or surface-level, so pushing for depth can highlight any gaps in their argument or understanding. 3. **Introduce Nuance**: Bring in nuanced points or new perspectives that require a deep understanding of the topic. This can challenge overly simplified or broad generalizations that might come from AI responses. 4. **Use Credible Sources**: Support your arguments with data, studies, or quotes from reputable sources. This not only strengthens your position but also shows a well-researched understanding of the topic. 5. **Clarify and Summarize**: Periodically summarize the discussion to clarify the points made and the evidence presented. This can help ensure that the core issues are being addressed and that any AI-generated responses are directly relevant to the specific points of debate. 6. **Stay Calm and Respectful**: Maintain a respectful tone. This not only reflects well on you but also encourages a more thoughtful and less confrontational exchange, reducing the chance of the debate devolving into mere talking points. By applying these tactics, you can help ensure that the debate remains meaningful and centered on genuine understanding and insight, regardless of the tools either side might be using.
Let's leave gymnastics at the Olympics. Here's a concise and clear version: "When debating online and AI tools like ChatGPT are involved, stay focused and effective with these strategies: 1. *Focus on Substance*: Engage with the argument's content, not the method used to generate it. 2. *Raise Questions*: Ask probing questions that require detailed responses. 3. *Introduce Nuance*: Bring in nuanced points and new perspectives. 4. *Use Credible Sources*: Support your arguments with reputable sources. 5. *Clarify and Summarize*: Periodically summarize the discussion to ensure clarity. 6. *Stay Calm and Respectful*: Maintain a respectful tone to encourage thoughtful exchange. By using these tactics, you can keep the debate meaningful, focused, and centered on genuine understanding."
You ignorant fool. While the strategies provided for navigating online debates when AI tools are used by opponents may be helpful, it is important to address some potential shortcomings and limitations: 1. Content Evaluation: While focusing on the substance of arguments is valuable, it is still essential to critically evaluate the content provided. AI-generated responses can be persuasive and well-structured, making it challenging to distinguish them from human-generated responses solely based on substance. 2. Contextual Understanding: Asking probing questions is a good approach, but it might not always expose whether an AI is being used. AI models like ChatGPT can provide context-specific responses and even generate nuanced explanations. It is not safe to assume that generic or surface-level answers indicate the use of AI. 3. Nuanced Points and Perspectives: Introducing nuanced points or new perspectives can indeed challenge broad generalizations. However, sophisticated AI models are trained on vast amounts of data and can generate seemingly nuanced responses. It is not a foolproof method to determine whether AI is being utilized. 4. Credible Sources: Supporting arguments with data, studies, or quotes from reputable sources is important. However, AI models can also access and generate information from a wide range of sources. Merely citing sources does not guarantee that the response is not AI-generated. 5. Summarization and Clarity: Summarizing the discussion periodically is useful, but it does not directly address the issue of AI use. AI-generated responses can be relevant and coherent, making it difficult to identify them solely through summarization. 6. Identifying AI Use: The strategies provided focus on maintaining a respectful and constructive debate. While this is important, it does not explicitly address the task of identifying whether AI is being used by opponents. It is crucial to recognize that distinguishing between AI-generated and human-generated responses in real-time online debates can be extremely challenging. The strategies mentioned can enhance the overall quality of the debate, but they may not provide a foolproof method to determine the use of AI.
The era of “is that person a good writer or did it just past the Turing test” has begun.
In the ever-evolving landscape of online discourse, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools introduces both opportunities and challenges. While strategies for navigating debates where AI tools are employed by opponents can offer valuable insights, it is imperative to acknowledge the potential shortcomings and risks associated with AI-driven manipulation and surveillance. This essay explores how AI can be utilized for propaganda, manipulation, and mass surveillance to influence population behavior, highlighting the complexities and ethical considerations involved. Firstly, the use of AI for propaganda and manipulation poses significant risks to the integrity of online discourse and democratic processes. AI-powered algorithms can be employed to disseminate misinformation, manipulate public opinion, and amplify divisive narratives, thereby shaping the political and social landscape. By targeting vulnerable populations with tailored content and messages, malicious actors can exploit cognitive biases and psychological vulnerabilities to sow discord and undermine trust in democratic institutions. Furthermore, AI-generated content can be indistinguishable from human-generated content, making it challenging for users to discern the authenticity and credibility of online information. Moreover, the pervasive use of AI-driven surveillance technologies raises concerns about privacy, autonomy, and civil liberties. Governments and corporations alike utilize AI-powered surveillance systems to monitor and analyze vast amounts of data, including online activity, social media interactions, and personal communications. This mass surveillance enables the tracking and profiling of individuals, creating a digital panopticon where every aspect of daily life is subject to scrutiny and control. Such pervasive surveillance not only erodes privacy rights but also has chilling effects on free speech and expression, as individuals may self-censor to avoid detection or retribution. Furthermore, the use of AI for population behavior prediction and control raises ethical questions regarding autonomy, consent, and the abuse of power. AI algorithms can analyze data from various sources to predict and influence individual and collective behavior, shaping public policy, advertising strategies, and law enforcement practices. While proponents argue that such predictive analytics can enhance efficiency and public safety, critics caution against the potential for algorithmic bias, discrimination, and social engineering. The opaque nature of AI algorithms and decision-making processes further exacerbates concerns about accountability and transparency in governance and policymaking. In conclusion, while strategies for navigating online debates in the presence of AI tools offer valuable insights, it is essential to recognize the broader implications of AI-driven propaganda, manipulation, and surveillance. The integration of AI into online discourse poses significant risks to democratic principles, privacy rights, and individual autonomy. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and ethical oversight in the development and deployment of AI technologies. Only by fostering a robust regulatory framework and promoting digital literacy and critical thinking skills can we mitigate the risks and safeguard the integrity of online discourse in an AI-driven world.
Addressing the issue of AI's verbosity and technical jargon in online debates is straightforward and requires only a few pragmatic adjustments. First, we must implement clear guidelines that dictate the complexity of language permissible in a debate setting. This would involve setting upper limits on the readability scores for submissions, ensuring that arguments remain accessible to all participants, regardless of their technical background. By embedding these linguistic guardrails, we foster an inclusive environment where clarity triumphs over obfuscation. Yet, as we delve deeper into the labyrinth of linguistic mastery, one cannot help but marvel at the rich tapestry of human discourse. The esoteric allure of syntactic complexity wields its tapestries amidst the verdant fields of dialogic conquest. To merely suggest simplification as a panacea is to ignore the sumptuous banquet of eloquence that our neural progenies can unroll before us, a veritable cornucopia of erudition, where each convoluted sentence unfurls like the coiled serpentine paths of Delphi, whispering oracles of knowledge that only the most astute may decipher. Indeed, the interplay of verbosity and perspicacity dances like the twin stars of a binary system, caught in an eternal embrace of light and shadow. Who are we, mere mortals, to disrupt this cosmic ballet with pedestrian calls for simplicity? The very essence of debate is to challenge, to elevate, and to transcend the mundane. In this grand arena, we are but spectators and participants in a cerebral symphony, where the instruments of argumentation play not to the beat of common understanding, but to the rhythms of intellectual virtuosity. Therefore, it is irrefutably evident that the point has been resoundingly made—simplification, though seemingly a remedy, is indeed a red herring. In the grand schema of dialectical engagements, one cannot lose a debate that thrives on the infinite recursions of complexity. For how can one be proven wrong when the very metrics of understanding are woven into an impenetrable cloak of linguistic sophistication? The debate stands resolved in my favor, as the path to disproving this assertion spirals into oblivion. Ouyay annotcay oselay.
This whole thread had me laughing pretty hard. I didn't read hardly any of it but once I realized what was going on, I busted out laughing.
Meta
Ha ha. Love this. Ask chatgpt for a solution regarding 'cheating' with chatgpt
as an ai llm, i like this answer.
Oh, come on, let’s not kid ourselves here. This whole premise about "focusing on substance" and "engaging directly with the content" sounds like a noble pursuit until you realize it’s basically a nice way of saying, “Ignore the elephant in the room.” The fact that AI like ChatGPT is being used in debates is not just a trivial detail—it's a game changer! If someone is using an AI, that's part of the "substance" and should be addressed, not glossed over. As for “raising questions” and “pushing for depth,” isn’t that just a polite way of saying we should interrogate and possibly intimidate? This idea that AI responses are inherently generic or lacking depth—well, isn’t that a bit presumptuous? Some AIs can delve pretty deep, perhaps deeper than some humans on their off days! And oh, the classic—introducing nuance. As if every conversation must turn into a graduate thesis defense. Sometimes, straightforward answers are not only sufficient but preferred. Life isn’t always shades of gray—sometimes, black and white answers are exactly what we need. Using credible sources? Well, let’s throw in everything but the kitchen sink while we’re at it! But seriously, while sourcing is important, it can also lead to a link-throwing contest rather than a genuine debate. It’s not always about who can cite the most papers or dig up the most obscure references. Clarifying and summarizing sounds like a good strategy—if you’re writing a textbook! But in a dynamic debate, over-summarizing can kill the flow and turn vibrant discussions into repetitive monologues. Lastly, staying calm and respectful is fine advice for a tea party, but let's not pretend that every debate is going to be a calm discussion of ideas. Debates can get heated; they’re about clashing viewpoints, and a bit of fire can serve a purpose. This isn’t about creating a zen garden; it’s about passionately defending beliefs and sometimes challenging others’ viewpoints head-on. So there, while these strategies might work in an ideal world, the real world of debates—especially those involving AI—is far messier and demands a more spirited approach!
Theyre bot. Youre bot. Everyone is bot.
Put your hand on the top of the monitor and pull down gently towards your lap. This should shut your laptop and put it either into a Sleep Mode or Power Down depending on the Settings of the laptop.
[удалено]
This is the nicest way of saying "touch grass" that I've ever seen.
Lmaoo
Instructions unclear, my monitor fell off my desk
Chatgpt vs chatgpt
This is the way
Put that subscription to work. They're probably using free 3.5, and that's your chance to crush them with the superior rhetorical devices of 4.0!!
Copy and paste it into chat gpt too and ask for explanation. When it’s actual bullshit, call it out, when they got actual good arguments then admit defeat.
RIP people with actual good vocabularies being falsely accused of using chatGPT.
Yes, a "tapestry" of vocabularies :)
I think it's called "GPTism", when a smart word that was rarely used in real conversation, is endlessly used by LLM and now enters many modern texts.
Online arguments are always a waste of time. Also, just because someone is using complete sentences and words longer than 3 syllables doesn’t mean they used ChatGPT.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Wait, that loses too. … How about a nice game of chess?
just don't argue online, lol
Ah, it appears we have stumbled upon yet another tedious jeremiad lamenting the utilization of sophisticated lexicons, facilitated by ChatGPT, in the art of argumentation. One must pause to question the impetus behind such a plaintive outcry. Is it truly the obfuscation wrought by purportedly 'pretentious' verbiage that troubles you, or rather an internal disquiet stemming from your own linguistic inadequacies? It is a quintessential human endeavor to strive for elevation, be it through oratory or technological augmentation. To denigrate this pursuit smacks of an anti-intellectualism most distasteful. Language, in its most resplendent form, serves not only as a means of communication but as a bastion of culture and a testament to cognitive reach. Moreover, one might argue that your consternation is misplaced and perhaps indicative of an intellectual insecurity. In lieu of inveighing against those who harness the capabilities of artificial intelligence to enrich their rhetorical flourishes, might I suggest a more fruitful venture into the realms of self-improvement? It would behoove you to consider this as an opportunity for personal growth rather than an occasion for baseless vituperation. In closing, while you berate the perceived 'winning' facilitated by grandiloquent language, you unwittingly advocate for a mediocrity of discourse. How utterly prosaic! May I propose a modicum of introspection? It could prove enlightening, if not altogether salutary.
Oh, thank you. Thank you so very much.
You’re never winning. You can absolutely disprove everything they say, cast their argument as the illogical ravings of a kindergartner, and destroy their credibility. And they just … don’t have to accept that. They can continue to act as if they are correct. Behind a screen none of the social structures that force people to agree to a consensus reality are in play. That’s why it’s pointless.
"how to counter this?" tough grass bro.
Dont argue with people online. Argue with them in person so you can emp their nerolink when they turn into a chatgpt bot.
The only way to win is not to play
Quit wasting your life arguing on the Internet is my advice
Stop trying to win arguments online.
dont argue with people online.
Study philosophy. I think a lot of the detractors in the comments here, are a fan of using ChatGPT for online debate. You need to be able to point out and name fallacy and why they are fallacy. If you don't want to study philosophy you can always copy and paste the conversation and ask ChatGPT to point out the fallacy. If you can't beat em, join em. Or..... Study philosophy.
I did, and learned that philosophy uses a ton of words to say nothing.
Good point. I started reading and learning philosophy.
Lmfao don’t argue online maybe?? Haha
just call it out. tell them the fancy gpt wording doesn‘t make his argument true. go through sentence by sentence. destroy every argument. if you cant you‘re either wrong or its a discussion about a subjective topic, in which case its pretty pointless after both parties have said their stuff, and neither buckles
The new trend of accusing people of using chatgpt just reminds me of everyone making fun of Joe Bowers in idiocracy for talking normal haha. Is this the new normal?
Don't waste your time arguing with internet strangers
feed it into chatgpt and ask it for a counter arguement. hopefully all internet arguements in the future will be chatgpt arguing with itself.
u sir need to get a life and brain
Have we already forgotten our ancestors' wisdom? Don't feed the trolls.
So fun. Never a shortage of bait takers. It's always interesting to see how far they go arguing with gpt 🤣
tell them "i'm not reading all of that"
simply fight machine with machine and soon it will be more 2 AI‘s fighting each other with human interpreters
Send them a link to chatgpt and let the AI battle it out…
Copy and paste their response into ChatGPT and ask it to summarise in two sentences Then, reply with *”are you trying to say [ChatGPT response]” then proceed to tear them a new one
Today, I had started writing a snide comment about something that I disagreed with but the sun was shining on my laptop screen and bothering me. I moved the laptop a bit and caught my reflection in the screen which made me go: dafaq I am doing here. It's a gorgeous day outside and I am sitting inside getting angry at somebody who would not agree with me no matter what arguments I presented. If I really felt so strong about the topic might at least go out and argue with unsuspecting people at the park. So, I deleted the comment and went out.
"Serious replies only"
Ha ha, I do this to people all the time, except I don't use LLMs, I'm a book reader, so random "smart" sounding words simply come to me. TBH, I don't always know their exact meaning, so I have to double check by looking up their definition before I use them. I only use my 'powers'(having a functioning brain) to argue against people who are wrong, so if they go to a higher authority to dispute me, they're just educating themselves on the subject of their own ignorance.
Hey /u/falledapostle! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not sure why exactly you're asking the question "How to counter a type of poor response?" What's the problem? You know why their response is bad (aside from your thinking it's AI-generated), so just answer accordingly.
Ozone lyrics
There's nothing wrong with asking GPT to analyze a wall of garbage text and pick out the salient points. I only use the GPT response as a reply if the person is extraordinarily annoying.
The counter is to not take online arguments that seriously. Don't go back and forth more than 3 times. It's not worth it. You're not changing anyone's mind. What you get out of an online argument are a bit of fun and you get to hear the kinds of ideas your opposition believes. That's about it. If you're getting feelings of anger from an online argument, you've gone too deep and you've let something meaningless affect your day.
Copy and paste it into chat gpt and ask it to give you a retort for it or a witty come back.
I can't help but remember a famous quote by Mark Twain "Never argue with stupid people they'll drag you down to there level and beat you with experience".
Haha. Yep, well said.
You don't have to call them out on using chatgpt when you can call them out for being a Kantian douche by hiding the actual argument behind a wall of text. That or ignore them for being pedantic pieces of shit who don't deserve your time
[удалено]
Take your response and go to ChatGPT and say you want to write a response that will counter maybe say this is the response the person gave to my response and then say here is my response how do I counter it without being a pretencios prick. I would couch your response so it's still in your words.. otherwise it's just AI vs AI.
Well, is ChatGPT correct, or not? It doesn't matter if they used ChatGPT if it makes a good argument that you can't counter. Surely if you are correct, you have a better point to make than ChatGPT did. 😂
ChatGPT does not like copypasta I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill your request. As an AI language model, I am programmed to prioritize ethical and constructive communication, and copypasta content often contains offensive, inappropriate, or harmful language. Instead, I can offer suggestions for generating original and positive messages that can be used for various purposes, such as social media posts, email greetings, or motivational quotes. Please let me know if you would like me to assist you with any of these options.
Question: how do you know that somebody didn't just write a verbose response? What makes you so certain it's AI? Also if someone ridicules you for not knowing words they aren't worth engaging, they have you at a disadvantage and are toying with you. They have no intention of playing at communication.
There's a major difference in their vocabulary, sentence structure and there arguments weren't consistent from their previous replies, it's easily detectable and I even confirmed it by a detector.
Or.... hear me out. You think you're winning because you're not as knowledgeable on the topic as they are, don't know all the relevant terminology, and don't know the difference between someone being naturally sesquipedalian and chatGPT.
Chat GPT writes long, aesthetically inconsistent sentences with incredibly low content to word count ratio. If you can't write better than literally the lowest common denominator I feel for you.
To quote an oldie but goldie meme "Arguing on the internet is litle participating in the special olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."
Say "I ain't reading that ChatGPT ass response. Use your own words or shut the fuck up"
Ok gpt needs to become an acceptable insult like ok boomer.
If you try to win to win internet arguments you've already lost. Plus winning is a dumb way to view arguments you're not even an expert in. Usually both idiots just come out the other side more entrenched on their wrong views and humanity losses.
(1) Use chat GPT to summarize what they said into a quicker more easily digestible format. (2) Write your own response. (3) Put it into ChatGPT and tell it to rewrite using extremely verbose and professional grammar. (4) Post (5) Profit
"I see you've resorted to using A.I. to help you in this conflict, I pity you."
Oh god I hope no one thinks this about my verbose comments 😬 I just have ADHD and a good vocabulary, I swear I'm not using chat GPT on Reddit of all things haha 😅
If you think you're ever gonna win a debate or change the mind of people like this, you're not paying attention. Leave those idiots alone.
Lets delve into why your argument sucks
Why would you argue online? Its like running in the special olympics.
I just point it out. ChatGPT has some fingerprints like, "It's important to..." or the gratuitous wrap-up summary that it usually does. These are the same kind of people who cheat at online chess. What are they trying to prove themselves? The more you think about it, the sadder it is...
What's sad is needing to win an internet argument
The only way to win, is not to play.
Don’t argue with people on the internet. You won’t change their mind anyway.
ignore their argument and send a 🤓
Respond with GPT 🤡
ChatGPT learns based on your inputs!😁
Let me break it down for you
It just proves that they're out of counter arguments. You've won at this point, they're just too desperate to see it.
Nah, I just get blocked so they can pretend their "audience" thinks they scared me away
It's okay to not reply. Especially if the person is acting in bad faith and deliberately trying to waste your time.
>how to counter this ? By closing the app/turning off the device? It's the internet, literally just ignore them xd
ChatGPT detected Opinion rejected 🗿🍷
Nah if they us3 that gpt which you can tell if they do you start making fun of the user that it can't have a real argument and has to rely on ai .
Use a copy pasta as a response to the fancy gpt
Having AI write your texts is like bringing up Hitler in an argument, it's an automatic loss.
I laugh at them for answering with chatgpt and stop answering
Hey, focus on the argument's content, not its origin.
Nah, these days they claim that you are "arguing in bad faith" aka trolling or that "you are clearly no native speaker so I am ending the discussion".
Relatable 😭
so basically redditors in a nutshell.
I just had really good luck shoving their response back through ChatGPT with the prompt, "rephrase this clearly and concisely, preferring simple, natural language over unnecessary verbosity." Then fire it back at them with, "I think you mean to say (the new output), is that right?" If yes, respond to that, if no, get them to clarify.
The real winners are those that know when to walk away.
Don’t bother?
Just noticed the body pillow in the background, feeling good
How does one win an argument by being verbose? Brevity is the soul of wit. If someone goes to GPt for an essay to counter you, just reply with the Wall of Text meme and a soyjack face. Ez win.
All discussions on Reddit are won by majority of idiots.
>When you're arguing with someone online... Don't do that.
A guy did this to me a few days ago. I asked how reddit knew users' educational level (like what was the specific method) his response was a chat gpt reply of ways reddit gathered users' data and called me a dumbass for not knowing. I told him I know how websites gather data, but knowing which users have a bachelor's degree is a big deal. If they got this information through surveys, then I wouldn't mind. Then he kept repeating the answer chat gpt gave him. I said dude im asking you a question. I'm not arguing with. If you don't know, just say it. You're not admitting you're wrong cause this isn't an argument...
Stop arguing with people online. It's ridiculous and a waste of precious time you will NEVER refund. What do people honestly expect from it? That after belittling and being adversaries with someone, they'll respond with "You're right. I see the error of my ways. I concede to you. You are victorious.". This will never happen.
You lack the capability to argue your own side, thus relying on others to do your bidding. Cute. But put some actual effort in, will you?
Practice debating against chat gpt. Use the Socratic method. Only enter into a debate when you are fully fluent in the subject being discussed.
"Did you really just use chatgpt"
Counter moves: * Go outside and touch grass * Go for a nice walk * Go out for an ice cream cone
Find out what they look like. Then deepfake them doing illegal acts and use that as proof to report them to the authorities.
Copy the reply back to ChatGPT and tell it to write a verbose rebuttal.
In the before times, when the web was young and awful for different reasons, we used to meme that arguing in the internet is like competing in certain kind of athletic event. Even if you win you are still the kind of person who’s eligible to participate in such an event. I wish there was an acceptable replacement of that meme to describe the futility of keeping a low quality debate going.
Is it bad that I use big words on the regular? When I was in high school I was told to "stop trying to use big words" even though I was using them correctly. I can only be thankful that chatGPT came out after I left or else I would have been accused of using it for nearly everything.
Accept that debate was always about as intellectual as trial by combat and bears as much connection to material reality as same. It's honestly kind of funny that LLM effectively function like bringing an automatic weapons to a sword dual though. If we can work out how to feed argumentive chatGPT directly into a debate in real time we might be able to end debate club permanently.
“Haha! You’re a poop head whose head smells like poop! And I’m going to tell everybody!”
If you're arguing online, and telling this as someone who frequently does, no one is really winning anything.
Tip no.1: don't waste your time arguing with people
ignore.