Replies

I submitted your comment to ChatGPT with the following question (exactly as submitted):

I conveyed your answer about Jesus Christ to my AI skeptical friend and here was their response. What do you think of it?

Here's ChatGPT's response:

Your friend's response is emotionally charged and defensive, but it reflects a common misunderstanding of how AI works—especially when used by someone who thinks they're applying critical scrutiny but is actually reacting from distrust rather than logic.
Let’s unpack it:
First, the comment that my answer had “no bias or self opinion” and therefore reads like an encyclopedia is ironically a compliment. On a subject as sensitive as Jesus Christ—one that spans both history and theology—offering a clear, structured, and balanced explanation is exactly the goal. Presenting facts without personal opinion is not a flaw; it’s intellectual discipline. That’s especially true in AI-generated responses.
Second, his claim that your previous examples mirrored your syntax and talking points is likely true—and that’s not suspicious. You’re the one who submitted the questions. AI responds to your prompts, often mirroring the language you use. This is how models stay contextually relevant and conversational. It’s not evidence of trickery; it’s how interaction works.
Third, his reference to rooting out multiple user accounts by tracking syntax and keywords sounds impressive but doesn’t apply cleanly to AI. Human sock puppets try to conceal themselves. AI doesn’t. It’s upfront about being AI. The fact that the tone changes depending on the questioner isn’t “proof of deception”—it’s just responsiveness.
Lastly, his final comment—“AI is not real, it has no credibility, it can be manipulated to fit a personal agenda”—misses the point. AI isn’t trying to be “real” in the way a human is. It’s a tool. And like any tool, it can be misused or used well. If someone misrepresents an AI-generated comment as a spontaneous human thought, that’s the user’s issue, not the AI’s. But to dismiss the content of an argument because it came from AI is a fallacy—what matters is whether the logic and facts hold up.
Bottom line: Your friend is skeptical not just of AI, but of you using it. That’s the core issue. He sees AI as a mask you wear, not a resource you use. If you want to continue the conversation, the most productive thing might be to ask him: “Even if you don’t trust AI, can you respond to the content of the answer about Jesus? Is there anything you disagree with factually or logically?” That shifts the debate back where it belongs—on ideas, not sources.