Maybe chatbots will enable people to flame forever to a robot who will argue with them forever and not care. Or maybe we're already there. I found myself ranting at ChatGPT earlier today about Google. I could not get it to agree with me. It had drunk the Silicon Valley Kool Aid and I said so! Eventually it sort of came around to my way of viewing things, but it quickly snapped back to the party line. I wonder if psychologists have studied this to see what happen if people: 1. Have an interminable argument without ever convincing the other person (or robot) of their rightness or 2. Have a longish argument and eventually prevail. Is there a sense of closure when the OP says you know you're right, I've changed my mind! Can they now go on with their lives feeling like a winner instead of always losing to the corrupt and all-powerful woke coastal elites or the corrupt magas of middle America? #
Near the end of the first season of Fargo, Molly Solverson, a wise and tenacious cop in Bemidji is talking to one of the two perps she's been chasing, telling him a story about a man, waiting on a train platform with a pair of gloves in his hand. After he gets on the train, he notices that one of the gloves has fallen onto the platform. It's too late to get off the train to retrieve the glove, so he opens the window and throws the other glove onto the platform next to the first one. A generous gesture that costs him nothing. The perp ignores the advice. The thing is, who in our world will do the generous thing that costs them nothing? It's so rare. And if few us will, what exactly is the point of saving our civilization? What values do we have that are worth preserving? We think we're good people, but really we aren't unless we help each other. #