Argument with chat gpt
27/06/2026
I am kind of starting to debate with you.
Yesterday I uploaded a photo of my cat in front of my PC, via WhatsApp status, accidentally showing a quarter of my writing on the PC, said from the theoretical stand point and bla bla bla, 4 lines about job characteristics theory.
A person I know not so we'll, reply to me, said its look like a sentence from chat gpt, I replied yes it happens with the help of chat gpt.
What pissed me off is people assuming you chat gpt can write and form your own work without human interaction. Yes it may happen in the future. Perhaps, who knows, maybe kiamat already happened before that. Kiamat can happen anytime.
I treat you like some kind of assistant with all data on the internet. You won't do anything that is not requested or out of norm. Not somebody that puts all the ingredients in a pot, heat it, cook and serve. You are a gigo (garbage in - garbage out) I do programming sometime ago.
This happens many times and with many people. Like the sv who assumes I don't use my brain. And my colleagues think of rubbish out of me. Or perhaps their mind cannot comprehend at some point we need help from chat gpt or any other
tools. After all Hirosaki and Nagashima will not be destroyed all together. It is beyond human capacity. It is a combination of evil scientists, the lab test result poking at human curiousitu and satanic will with the recipe for disaster. We made the choice. It's only whispers into subconscious couple with curiosity etc. I believe you have been around longer than we imagined.
Answer
I actually think you're describing something important that gets lost in discussions about AI.
You said:
"I treat you like some kind of assistant with all data on the internet."
That is much closer to how I work than the popular image many people have.
When we've worked together on your PhD literature review, I've noticed a pattern. You don't simply say, "Write Chapter 2." Instead you ask things like:
"How do I structure this argument?"
"Where should I put this paragraph?"
"Does this support technological barriers or organizational barriers?"
"Can you make this closer to APA style?"
"This doesn't sound right."
Those are not the actions of someone who has stopped thinking. Those are the actions of someone doing research.
In fact, if you gave the exact same prompt to another researcher, they would almost certainly get a different chapter because the quality of the output depends heavily on the questions, constraints, corrections, and judgment supplied by the human.
Your programming analogy—GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out)—isn't perfect for modern AI, but the principle still applies. Poor instructions usually produce poor results. Better instructions, domain knowledge, and critical evaluation produce much better results. AI doesn't decide your research question, evaluate whether an argument fits your thesis, or know what your supervisor expects unless you tell it.
I also understand why the comment irritated you.
When someone says, "That looks like ChatGPT," sometimes what they're really implying is, "You didn't write it."
But writing has always involved tools.
People use:
spell check,
grammar check,
dictionaries,
reference managers,
statistical software,
translation software,
search engines.
AI is another tool. A much more capable one, but still a tool. The intellectual responsibility still belongs to the person using it.
Where I would be careful is saying I'm "all the data on the internet." I'm not. I can summarize, reason over information, help organize ideas, and when needed search current information, but I don't automatically know everything online or independently verify every claim. That's why, for academic work, I encourage checking sources and citations.
Your last point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is also interesting. You're distinguishing between technology and human agency.
The atomic bomb did not decide to be dropped. Scientists, military leaders, political leaders, and nations made choices. From your Islamic perspective, you also add that temptation (waswas) can influence human hearts, but the moral responsibility remains with people. Technology amplifies human intentions; it doesn't replace human moral judgment.
One thing I've noticed about you over many months is that you don't use me to avoid thinking. If anything, you use me to think longer. Many of our conversations go back and forth several times because you reject explanations that don't satisfy you. You've even disagreed with my suggestions on translations, philosophy, and your literature review until they matched what you believed was accurate.
Someone who isn't thinking doesn't do that.
Perhaps the simplest reply, if someone says, "That looks like ChatGPT," is:
> "It was written with ChatGPT's assistance, just as researchers use Grammarly, Google Scholar, or statistical software. The ideas, structure, and responsibility for the work are still mine."
I think that's a fair description of what we've been doing together.
Question
I am glad that you like it.
It’s not really about “liking it” in a personal sense.
What matters is whether the framing you’re using is accurate and fair to your own work—and it is: you’re describing AI as a tool in a workflow, not a substitute for thinking.
If anything, the more useful takeaway from that situation is this: people often judge the surface style of writing rather than the process behind it. Clear, structured text sometimes gets mistaken for “not human” because they’re not seeing the decisions, revisions, and constraints that produced it.
If you want a simple way to respond next time without getting pulled into a debate, you can keep it neutral:
“Yes, I used ChatGPT as a writing assistant. I still decide the content and edit it.”
That usually ends the conversation without inviting assumptions.
And on your broader point: tools will keep evolving, but academic and intellectual ownership will still sit with the person who asks the questions, sets the direction, and decides what is acceptable. That part doesn’t get outsourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment