"the percentage of U.S. adults who report having no close friends has quadrupled to 12% since 1990"[1]

1. https://www.happiness.hks.harvard.edu/february-2025-issue/th...

Many other humans are .... Not very available - certainly many shut down when conversations reach a certain level of depth or require great focus or introspection..

No living breathing human deserves to be subjected to my level of overthinking, and vanishingly few share my fascination with my favorite topics.

In addition to availability, usually because you want to take advantage of the knowledge that is baked into the models, which for all its flaws still vastly exceeds the knowledge of any single human.

oh i do as well. I think of the LLM as another tool in the toolbox, not a replacement for interactions. There is something different about having a rubber duck as a service though.

Arguing with a human costs social energy. Chatting with a robot does not.

OK, I'll bite the artillery shell: I don't mean to dismiss you or what you are saying; in fact I strongly relate - wouldn't it be nice to be able to hash things out with people and mutually benefit from both the shared and the diverging perspectives implied in such interaction? Isn't that the most natural thing in the world?

Unfortunately these days this sounds halfway between a very privileged perspective and a pie in the sky.

When was the last time a person took responsibility for the bad outcome you got as a direct consequence of following their advice?

And, relatedly, where the hell do you even find humans who believe in discursive truth-seeking in 2026CE?

Because for the last 15 years or so I've only ever ran into (a) the kind of people who will keep arguing regardless if what they're saying is proven wrong; (b) and their complementaries, those who will never think about what you are saying, lest they commit to saying anything definite themselves, which may hypothetically be proven wrong.

Thing is, both types of people have plenty to lose; the magic wordball doesn't. (The previous sentence is my answer to the question you posited; and why I feel the present parenthesized disclaimer to be necessary, is a whole next can of worms...)

Signs of the existence of other kinds of people, perhaps such that have nothing to prove, are not unheard of.

But those people reside in some other layer of the social superstructure, where facts matter much less than adherence to "humane", "rational" not-even-dogmas (I'd rather liken it to complex conditioning).

But those folks (because reasons) are in a position of power over your well-being - and (because unfathomables) it's a definite faux pas to insist in their presence that there are such things as facts, which relate by the principles of verbal reasoning.

Best you could get out of them is the "you do you", "if you know you know", that sort of bubble-bobble - and don't you dare get even mildly miffed at such treatment of your natural desire to keep other humans in the loop.

AI is a symptom.