This is what is absent in “conversation” (in scare quotes because not really such) with chatbots. Not possessing bias in the human sense, chatbots have no stake in the arguments they offer, including when they contradict the human who inputs a prompt. An unbiased interlocutor, in the final instance, is no interlocutor at all. To interact with a synthetic Other, like a chatbot, is to interact without that fateful and tragic gap that lies between every person and every other person. Easier, that is, but pointless.
One endlessly useful thing I learned from the great Thomas Sowell is simply to ask, when faced with flatulent, idealistic theorizing, “Compared to what?” OK, wonderful, you’re an academic, and you and your academic colleagues have scintillating Socratic dialogues all the live-long day. We fishwives and costermongers don’t typically have that option. We’re lucky if we know people who read for fun and can have intelligent conversations that don’t veer into lunatic conspiracy territory within five minutes.
Last week, I wanted to play in the “history of ideas” sandbox for a little while. I wanted to trace the genesis and development in Western culture of the idea that we are all tasked with some sort of destiny, or talent, that we are obligated to develop to its fullest potential. I knew of a couple sources and references, but I wanted to dig deeper. I put the question to you, dear readers. The floor is open. How many of you would have had a relevant and useful answer for me? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Another question: how likely is it that a basic Google search would have been any use to me for such a wide-ranging theme? It is in the realm of possibility that some academic published a monograph on this exact topic, but how would I find it? (And how readable or interesting would it be?)
So with ChatGPT in “thinking” mode (should be the default setting, in my opinion), I explained my query to “him” (sorry, can’t get used to “it” as a pronoun). In exactly seven minutes, he had an outline of the intellectual genealogy, complete with accurate links and citations for me to wallow in to my heart’s content. I probably spent a couple hours chasing after link-trails like a manic bloodhound in order to write one paragraph of a post. Seven minutes to have a serviceable answer to a question that I’ve nibbled at diffidently for decades. This, as far as I’m concerned, is what the internet is for. I’m sorry for all of you who are using it wrongly, but there it is.
If the realistic, organic alternatives to “the synthetic Other” are (a) awkward small-talk, (b) performative flame-wars online, or (c) silence, then a bot that will actually listen, serve as a debate partner when asked, and help you think on paper compares pretty well. Burns treats “no skin in the game” as disqualifying; I’d call it a design constraint. Use the tool for what it’s good at, don’t mythologize it into a “person” (beyond pronoun convenience), and you avoid most of the category error.