[kfichter]

Tried this out for fun:

"Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but it’s not that black and white. There’s definitely a risk, especially for people who are lonely or vulnerable, and some companies are obviously exploiting that. But I’ve also seen situations where these AI tools actually help people who don’t have anyone else to talk to.

Like, sure, chatting with an AI isn’t the same as a real human, but for some people, it might be the only thing getting them through a rough time. It’s not ideal, but it’s better than nothing.

I do get the worry, though, that we’re heading toward a world where fake interactions become more normal and people lose touch with real connections. It’s hard to say which way things will go—depends a lot on how people end up using the tech. Could go either way."

[BehindBlueEyes]

See this is the point where I think it gets interesting because it can be as a low effort prompt once and post whatever the answer without any tweaking (often empty and easy to spot). But I also see it can take longer noodling on an AI answer than just writing the comment oneself would take (as I think this part of the thread illustrates).

I have no problem with people using AI to help articulate their thoughts, avoiding ambiguity, improving concision etc. I think how much effort goes into reviewing AI output and iterating on it is what makes the difference between easy to spot and passing as a real human answer...

[lamp_book]

That's certainly much better. Did you prompt it to use a more casual style?

Edit: Though I'll say it doesn't really interpret the 50/50 the we intended, but perhaps with additional context it could.