That's a cheap dismissal - if you had any good counters, you would have attacked the reasoning instead of reaching for that.

▲

colechristensen an hour ago | parent [-]

No it's not, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the sibling comment. I'm not willing to discuss with an LLM with a human intermediary. Your answer parrots what Google (gemini) says when you search with a question targeted as disagreeing with me. (I tried, out of curiosity)

▲

littlexsparkee 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

I already had the topsoil argument in mind before involving an LLM but your argument is that I shouldn't adopt more precise language or add claims I didn't originally think of because of the source? How is information from a search engine different? Should people purposely have shallower debates whereby they pretend not to know new information simply to appear organic / avoid LLM allegations? You would put an expert into the same bucket for having a comprehensive argument.

	▲	colechristensen 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If you start with a doomer mentality it is already very unlikely that you have any wish to discuss anything, you just want to create a list of arguments that all end with some variation of "we're doomed". Paired with an LLM which regardless will generally be ~80% agreeable with you, the conversation will literally be unending. After each point there will be a rebuttal of doom and very little reason involved on the human side in the middle. Unable to be convinced of anything and paraphrasing LLMs all along the way, the conversation is pointless. If I wanted an endless disagreement with an LLM I could set that up in my own time, I don't have to do it in public. Or I could find a friendly toddler in their "Why?" phase. If you'd like we can prime a couple of LLMs with our opinions and watch them go back and forth without us.