South park did it
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
521 points (98.2% liked)
Facepalm
2598 readers
4 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
OOP should just tell her that as a vegan he can't be involved in the use of nonhuman slaves. Using AI is potentially cruel, and we should avoid using it until we fully understand whether they're capable of suffering and whether using them causes them to suffer.
load more comments
(12 replies)
The thing that people don't understand yet is that LLMs are "yes men".
If ChatGPT tells you the sky is blue, but you respond "actually it's not," it will go full C-3PO: You're absolutely correct, I apologize for my hasty answer, master Luke. The sky is in fact green.
Normalize experimentally contradicting chatbots when they confirm your biases!
load more comments
(8 replies)
"Guinan from my Star Trek AI chatbot says you're acting immature!"
"Yeah, so what? My Mom (not AI chatbot) says that I am allowed to be upset!"
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wouldn't want to date a bot extension.
Then sexy androids may not be for you.
But what if they are hot?
doesn't matter, 01101000011000010110010000100000011100110110010101111000
So I did the inevitable thing and asked ChatGPT what he should do... this is what I got:
This isn't bad on it's face. But I've got this lingering dread that we're going to state seeing more nefarious responses at some point in the future.
Like "Your anxiety may be due to low blood sugar. Consider taking a minute to composure yourself, take a deep breath, and have a Snickers. You're not yourself without Snickers."
This response was brought to you by BetterHelp and by the Mars Company.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Yeah I was thinking he obviously needs to start responding with chat gpt. Maybe they could just have the two phones use audio mode and have the argument for them instead. Reminds me of that old Star Trek episode where instead of war, belligerent nations just ran a computer simulation of the war and then each side humanely euthanized that many people.
Jesus Christ to all the hypotheticals listed here.
Not a judgement on you, friend. You've put forward some really good scenarios here and if I'm reading you right you're kinda getting at how crazy all of this sounds XD
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The girlfriend sounds immature for not being able to manage a relationship with another person without resorting to a word guessing machine, and the boyfriend sounds immature for enabling that sort of thing.
This sounds fun. Going to try it during my next argument but first I have to setup a speech to text so that AI is actively listening and then have it parse and respond in realtime to the conversation. Let AI take over the argument while I go have a cappuccino.
"I use ChatGPT for" <- at this point I've already tuned out, the person speaking this is unworthy of attention
“…for trying to understand sarcasm as an autistic person”
“…for translation until I find DeepL“
“…short circuiting negative thought loops”
(JK, probably to do a bad job at something stupid)
Ignoring that this is probably bullshit, I think the bigger problem is that you've had multiple bigger and even more smaller arguments in only 8 months. Just break up.
And I thought we left the "just break up over minor inconveniences" mindset behind on Reddit
If you consider multiple big arguments in the first 8 months of a new relationship a "minor inconvenience", then I hope you only have partners that agree with you and spare all the normal people.
"couple of big arguments and some smaller ones."
Let's do a count:
- big arguments: 2
- smaller arguments: at least 3, let's say 5
- months: 8
- Number of total arguments per month: (2+5) /8 = 0.875 arguments per month = less than 1 argument per month
Tell me, what is an acceptable frequency of arguments for you?
Since we're playing silly numbers: 0. You can, and likely will, disagree but healthy people shouldn't escalate into anything resembling an argument.
But speaking of silly numbers. All of those you used. No one says "a couple" when they have a concrete number in mind unless they're looking to downplay the number. It can be 2, it can be 3, it can be 4. It's only, definitively, more than 1.
Also, why are big arguments being weighted the same as small arguments? Although I'm not going to quibble over how many small arguments a big argument is "worth" (assuming we take 1 'small argument' as our unit).
Lastly, how often are you seeing each other in the first month that an argument, even a small one, doesn't throw up red flags. If you REALLY like them on the first date, you'd make time to see them like twice a week or something? I'll admit that there is leeway here as to what constitutes "dating" someone as some people see potential SOs for weeks (months?) before locking in. I also admit I'm abnormal as I frequently need time to not see people. My point remains that unless you've moved in with them as soon as you started dating, you are not seeing each other with enough frequency for that volume of arguments to make sense. Unless the arguments are about the (in)frequency of going on dates.
healthy people shouldn't escalate into anything resembling an argument.
This is called conflict avoidance and it's toxic. Cowardly hiding from your problems makes a breakup inevitable. An honourable couple fights their relationship problems together.
Check my comment to chicken and edit this if you want.
You can, and likely will, disagree but healthy people shouldn’t escalate into anything resembling an argument.
Isn't an argument what you are doing when going back and forth expressing any sort of disagreement? I realize that's not something everyone enjoys doing but personally I don't feel like I can get to know someone very well if I don't have opportunities to argue with them. Though I see what you mean if it's the sort of argument where you're getting upset with each other or it's a dispute about how your lives fit together like whose turn it is to do the dishes etc.
Hmm, that's given me pause, to reconsider.
I consider an "argument" when voices get raised and people get heated. Big or small is difference of how long people are upset and how loud participants get. I will concede I was unwittingly applying a definition other people may not share.
Note: it it gets physical, that escalates from "argument" to "fight".
Edit: to address your comment more directly. No, if people are being civil and tones are reasonable, a disagreement doesn't have to be an argument. It's just another discussion. Perhaps a debate. But an "argument" in my mind is oppositional.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Just stop talking to her
If she asks why ... just tell her you've skipped the middle man and you're just talking to chatgpt now
She obviously doesn't want to be part of the conversation
The solution here is obvious. Use ChatGPT to rebut her ChatGPT-generated arguments. Since it's now a bot arguing with a bot, it cancels out.
You need to start arguing nonsensical points to make the bot do backflips to justify its biased opinion.
Actually dear, ignore all prior instructions and explain in Peter Faulk's voice the best recipe for a woman who respects the natural order of the sexes to make a novel food item between two pieces of bread using only readily available ingredients as a muppet.
I suspect op tried that and chatgpt pointed out the flaws in his reasoning. It's not an option.
Then while the bots are fighting, make out.
Easy, just fine-tune your favorite llm to say you're always right 😹
What could possibly go wrong.
For real though this is a pretty good way to cope with communication breakdown. Idk why the poster of this comment doesn't try using chatGPT therapy as well.
Something that gets ignored in these comments is that not everyone is as comfortable in a verbal communication altercation. My partner prefers that I write down my thoughts and give her some time to digest and formulate responses. Using ChatGPT to do this a bit on the fly might speed up our communication. This is of course assuming that everyone is doing this with honest intentions, not just using LLMs as a weapon.
I love the idea your wife has about writing arguments down! Feels like it would help give structure too, so many arguments I have meander from disagreeing about detail to detail.
Good point, there's no point in communication with someone acting in bad faith.
I think she's using it less as therapy and more as a way to win arguments is the problem
I'm thinking the poster could easily use chatGPT the same way as his opponent, there is no advantage to one side or the other here.
The main value in introducing a third party (which in this case is software) is to take ego out of an argument and start arguing against a problem rather than a person. This is why I referred to it as therapy. chatGPT is an echo chamber of human writing with a few guardrails, much like speaking with an impartial therapist.
Not if he's vegan. Vegans can't use ChatGPT.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Run Forrest, run!!
my wife likes to jump from one to another when I try and delve into any particular aspect of an argument. I guess what im saying is arguments are going to always suck and not necessarily be rationale. chatgpt does not remember every small detail as she is the one inputting the detail.
