Human arguments are full of flaws - lack of data to support what they wish to claim, biases, prone to fallacies and easily misinterpret what they hear. This could not be more evident than on nostr.
For the most part, AI can overcome all of these limitations if prompted responsibly, looking at all the arguments and counter arguments, connecting dots to see the bigger picture, avoid bias and common fallacies.
To outright reject this is to say “I’m not gonna bother looking at what you know because I’m convinced I’m right”.
Treat AI as a partner to supplement your thought process, not replace it. To enrich your knowledge, not override it. Use it as a stepping stone for exploration rather than a definitive answer.
quoting
note1x2p…9865