• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    TBH I don’t know if the risks of being an incorrect independently thinking human outweighs the risks of being manipulated by bots. Skepticism seems better of the available options. Sorry if that hurts some people’s feelings, but this is the internet.

        • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I was gonna reveal the jig if you kept going for one more comment without calling it. Didn’t want to yank your chain too much.

          Though I do think I agree with what ChatGPT said, if I interpreted it correctly. I was kinda skimming.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Nobody cares mate. What you posted is your opinion, flawed logic and all. Maybe if you wrote your own comment it might not have been so shit.

    • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I get where you’re coming from—skepticism is a reasonable stance given the circumstances. The risk of being misled by bots is real, and it’s crucial to approach online interactions with a critical eye. However, it’s also important to balance skepticism with an openness to genuine human engagement.

      While the internet can be a wild place, fostering a bit of trust and empathy can lead to more meaningful conversations and connections. We can stay cautious without becoming completely cynical. By asking questions and seeking deeper engagement, we can often tell apart genuine interactions from automated ones, while still maintaining our critical thinking skills.