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.
If your partner is an “opponent” in an argument, then you’ve lost the plot of your relationship. It’s you and your partner against the issue, not against each other.
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.
If your partner is an “opponent” in an argument, then you’ve lost the plot of your relationship. It’s you and your partner against the issue, not against each other.
Not if he’s vegan. Vegans can’t use ChatGPT.