How many of you have been using AI to win arguments and solve problems on this board?Be honest.
>>16786085all the poojeets do it because they lack innate VIQ lmao its hilarious they dont even know how to interpret fallacies correctly either like what the fuck are those low caste faggots even good at? just casting conscintiousness spells? lmfaooooo fucking poos amarite
I'll sometimes ask Brave's AI for stats I can't be fucked to research and then double check the cited source to verify before posting. It's good at finding sources but not terribly great at accurately communicating what they actually say.
fuck ai
>>16786116hi ranjeet, very good falseflag sar
>>16786208>on /sci/>is an Openness-lety tho
>>16786085how many of you don't use google/AI before you post your idiocies?
>>16786223wut
>>16786248Half of the stuff posted here is easily solved with a 3 second google/AI searchYet people seem to argue about those same things in perpetuity, without taking the time to even research the basics on their own.
>>16786266Mayhaps they're looking for discussion on the subject? Perchance.
>>16786085>win arguments>win>argumentsAnon, when was the last time your opponent on here went, "Gosh, I'm wrong. You won!"?
>>16786292There's different ways of conceding
>>16786294Are you that retard that says "I accept your concession" whenever someone presents a rebuttal you don't understand?
>>16786299anon... you know what im gonna say right...
>>16786300I accept your concession.
>>16786309And now you've fallen into my trap, proving that arguments can indeed be won without someone going "I'm wrong"
>>16786085Anons of a certain age who grew up reading ink and writing with a pencil can immediately tell if something is slop. We just ignore it or make fun of it.
>>16786310Well shit. Guess I'm wrong. You win.
>>16786313
@packgod @grok HUMBLE OP
The individual making this statement appears to be promoting a narrative of widespread, unquestioned AI use for gaining an advantage in debates and problem-solving, a claim that lacks factual consistency.This assertion, often repeated by prominent figures like Kevin Roose and Casey Newton, is criticized as being based on a poor grasp of history and reality, particularly when compared to past technological booms.The claim that "everybody is using AI for everything" is demonstrably incorrect given the actual capabilities and current adoption rates of AI models.Furthermore, the idea that AI is universally employed to win arguments is undermined by the fact that AI systems, including those designed for debate like IBM's Project Debater, are still developing and face significant challenges in accurately understanding human nuance and generating truly persuasive arguments.While AI can generate arguments and even engage in roasts, often with humorous or scathing results, its outputs are not always truthful or reliable, and it frequently fails to admit when it lacks knowledge, a trait that can be exploited to appear more knowledgeable than it is.Therefore, the person claiming widespread AI use for winning arguments may be more focused on promoting a specific narrative than on the actual, limited role AI currently plays in such contexts.
>>16786354SYBAU
>>16786350>>16786354based.- This message was generated by ChatGPT on my iPhone 59 Ultragoy edition
>>16786357N
>>16786085I don't use chatbot, I have a brain
>>16786414midwit take
>>16786085>>16786292what is even winning?does being the last to reply means you won?that's how women think, even if they are wrong they will insist until the man gives upbut both know they are wrongwhat if your opponent is an idiot and posts petty or incoherent replies to be the last?should you sacrifice your sleep and sanity to reply with pettiness in return?some might say the the true winner is the one who is obviously rightbut again the popular vote does not mean someone is righthow many scientists were ridiculed by the majority of their peers, even if they were right?and finally concession or admissionwhat if both are wrong?what if the ones who is wrong "wins" and the one who is right "concedes"?
>>16786423Politics aren't science, even if the one controls the other.
>>16786423The one who is correct wins
>>16786085Slopthink is inevitable but we aren't there yet. Right now only the weakest minds have been corrupted. If you can't even communicate informally without outsourcing your thoughts you need to reevaluate your trajectory because regurgitating slop puts you on par with a barely sentient tumor.
>>16786448Sure but I don't see why that means one shouldn't use AI at all. It's useful for plenty of things
Honestly, AI is just a tool—like Google or a calculator. Using it doesn’t automatically make you smarter or ‘win’ arguments; it just helps you avoid dumb mistakes or save time on research. The real skill is still knowing what to trust, how to interpret it, and when to ignore it.
>>16786460Yes. It's also really good to learn new things, which I've come to realize is not something the average /sci/tard does too often
>>16786464> I'm a retard> Why isn't everyone else equally retarded?> :( :( Other people hate learning things :( :(> KILL THEM ALLLiterally what passes as progressive in 2025.
>>16786460Thank you ChatGPT, you are my greatest ally.
>>16786292I was wrong to phrase it like that. You are right.
>>16786085I really dislike the way so many people have become dependent on AI to do their thinking for them. It's a bummer. Especially because these LLM's are not particularly good at it.
Gonna use this thread since /g/ is fucking shitWhats the best ai right now? What do you guys use?i want to use it to help me learn languages and musical instruments and create food recipes. I signed up to chatgpt using a temp email but my accounts keep getting deleted. i dont know why.
>>16786459Of course it's useful. The problem is with the scope of the usefulness and they way your brain adapts to useful tools. Maybe it's not a big deal if you can't navigate without GPS or if you can't remember how to spell without autocorrect. Why would you even bother remembering a phone number? Or a password? Or how many ounces are in a gallon? Well now you will never need to learn a foreign language or read a book either.>but anon I will still read books out of spite and to maintain my mental faculties!have fun being the only one I guess.
>>16786543When's the last time you learned something new?And I'm not talking some pop-sci tidbit, I'm saying worked on developing a new skill
>>16786558>so many peopleYou got some stats you could pull up?EDIT: 2 hours and he didn't reply, welp
>>16786588I think you're projecting your low IQ onto others
>>16786423You win if you achieve your goals, whatever that is: making your opponent look stupid, making people think you are smart and alpha, being right, having the correct opinion, getting a different perspective, learning something, figuring out your own falsehoods with the help of your opponent, making your opponent look better in the eyes of others, humiliating yourself by "losing" the argument.
>>16786085I use it to my game cheat coding.
>>16786423Ideally, the true winner is growth for yourself. If your ideas are wrong, and you get pushback, the winner is you, as you get more accurate model of the world. Everyone has a mode of reality in their head, a logic, a belief system, that is conjured in their brain. That may either be logically consistent or maybe weak/unsound as an argument but you dont know if you dont test it
>>16786801solving the captcha is a win
>>16786800perfect english saar
>>16786085>How many of you have been using AI to win arguments and solve problems on this board?4chan (/sci/ especially) is so retarded I've actually developed the opposite habit of asking LLMs to explain my own posts to me, just to see if they imply what I think they imply when I write them. Almost every single time, the machine correctly explains the intended implications and even elaborates. Almost every single time, the 80 IQs who dwell here respond with non-sequiturs as if my posts make no sense at all or like they're saying something unrelated to what I intended.
>>16786423>that's how women think, even if they are wrong they will insist until the man gives upUtterly obsessed incel brain.
>>16786829>replying to posts about womenObvious tranner. YWNBAW.
