It is obviously very different to solo writing. The burden should be on you to explain why it’s so similar that this line of conversation is worthwhile.

▲

pbhjpbhj 12 hours ago | parent [-]

The burden? We're not in court, to me it seems similar so I was asking the commenter for a response.

I've used LLMs in this way a couple of times. I'd like to see responses; there's obviously no obligation to 'defend', but the OP (or others) may have wished to ... like a conversation.

Somewhat ironically, this is a way that LLMs are preferred and why people use them (eg instead of StackOverflow) - because you don't get berated for being inquisitive.

	▲	dwb 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I said “the burden”, not “the burden of proof”. Not all inquisitions are worthwhile. The questions in your post have very obvious answers, especially in the context of the article. > Isn't it just like diary-writing or memo-writing, as far as therapy goes, the point being to crystallise thoughts and cathartise emotions? No, because a piece of paper is inert. A chat bot is a fundamentally different interaction and experience. A chat bot is not doing self-reflection. It is another thing, separate to you. What’s more, it is a product of a company that has a profit-seeking agenda. > Is it really so bad to have a textual nodding dog to bat against as part of that process? Yes, it can be, because sometimes it encourages you to kill yourself, as in the article linked at the top of the page, the one that we are commenting on.