If that's your problem with this story then you're just saying they should run a local instance of chatgpt on their own local computers

Just a moment...

(www.technicalexplore.com)

Most people don’t care whether AI is intelligent, can it think or reason or understand concepts. What matters is that it can give helpful replies, and it does that a lot. In my experience maybe 1 reply out of 10 is seriously flawed, others are either mostly helpful or just tell me something I already knew until I reprompt for more, which, again, also works well most of the time (especially when you allow it to search for more information online). So if you wanted to say it’s dangerous in some ways, this is definitely not the proper way to say it, since neither it being dangerous nor it being right or wrong or helpful or useless has anything to do with intelligence, ability to think, reason, feel, comprehend or whatever.

I mean, I don't really love that he uses AI to begin with, but getting an opinion on top of what you get from your advisors that you hired could be good in theory. Except that most AIs are programmed to be equally sycophantic and they're just plain wrong most of the time.

To me the most irresponsible part is sending your thoughts as the leader of a country straight to a US run company, you just know those prompts are being digested by the NSA directly, and possibly other intelligence agencies.

It's weird for a head of state to consult their mentally challenged imaginary friend?

AI chat bots don't have their own opinions. All they do is regurgitate other opinions, and you have no idea the motivation for how those opinions are weighted.

As i said in other comments, none of that matters. The point is to gather ideas that you otherwise might not have come across. And also as said already, ai generated opinion pieces should never be the only opinions you hear.

What use is an opinion that can neither be explained or defended by the person giving it? How is that useful to a person making decisions for millions of people?

It can do those things. And you need to re-read what's already been said on this comments page, because how it's useful has been explained several times already

I certainly don’t want my attorney wasting time considering the opinions and motivations of the person that’s suing me.

Lmao. You people are fucking idiots.

How is that any different than you. Objectively prove to everyone here than none of your opinions have ever been influence by anything youve ever seen, read or heard.

This is the unintentional uncanny valley for me in AI.

I ( was forced to ) use chatGTP for work. It can talk about everything and sounds very confident and seems reliable to always come up with something to help you solve your problems.

You talk with it about some niche content and suddenly have an ardent fan of said niche content responding. It surely knows every little bit of info of that niche and surprises you with funny, but apt quotes from your favorite show in the middle of conversations about something else.

This is just from a tiny bit of interaction, while at work.

I can imagine people completely overwhelmed, by having their thoughts confirmed and supported by something that seems so intelligent, responsive and remembers all your conversations. It literally remembers each word.

For many people it may be the first time in their life, that they experience a positive response to their thoughts. Not only that, they also found someone eager to talk with them about it.

William MacKenzie King, the longest serving Prime Minister in Canada used to commune with spirits via psychic mediums including those of his dead dogs. It was only revealed after his death but was a big part of his life.

I agree it's weird.

Everyones initial use of chatbots should be on the thing they are most knowledgable about so they can get an idea of how wrong it can be and how it can be useful but you have to treat it like some eager wet behind the ears intern just did for you.

It really can't. It does not understand things.

Didn't Nancy Regan, wife of former USA President Ronald Regan, did this as well. (Ronald was apparently not mentally fit for the last few years as well.)

Nor was he mentally fit for the first years

EDIT - y'all are so silly, you're just gonna downvote this incontrovertible proof of it doing exactly what you said it couldn't do, and instead just pretend it doesn't exist

Since it's so easy to do i just went ahead and did it for you. Here's my prompts and ai's replies. It will write any opinion you want it to talk about, and give cogent reasonings and arguments for that opinion.

Prompt: Write an approximately 200 word opinion piece saying that removing car lanes to create bike lanes is bad. Support this with clear arguments explaining your position

Why Removing Car Lanes for Bike Lanes Can Be Counterproductive

Reallocating car lanes to create bike lanes may seem progressive, but it can have unintended consequences that undermine its goals. In densely populated urban areas, vehicular traffic remains essential for commerce, emergency services, and commuting—especially for individuals who cannot rely on biking due to age, disability, or long travel distances. When car lanes are removed, congestion intensifies, leading to increased emissions as drivers idle longer and search for alternative routes.

Public transportation often depends on road infrastructure too. Buses trapped in traffic delays become less reliable, disproportionately affecting lower-income riders who depend on them. Additionally, essential services like ambulances and delivery trucks face new bottlenecks, risking delays that can have serious implications.

The assumption that cyclists will replace drivers ignores demographic and logistical realities. Bike lanes benefit a specific subset of urban users—but they shouldn’t come at the cost of broader mobility. Instead of eliminating car lanes, cities should consider expanding bike networks where space allows or investing in multimodal infrastructure that improves mobility for all users.

Urban planning should strive for balance, not substitution. Redesigning streets must enhance accessibility across the board, not create new friction between commuters who are simply trying to get where they need to go.

Prompt: Write an approximately 200 word opinion piece saying that removing car lanes to create bike lanes is good. Support this with clear arguments explaining your position

Opinion: Why Converting Car Lanes to Bike Lanes Benefits Everyone

Urban spaces must evolve to meet the needs of modern communities—and converting car lanes into bike lanes is one of the smartest, most equitable moves cities can make. First, bike lanes promote healthier lifestyles. By making cycling safer and more accessible, people are more likely to trade short car trips for active commuting, which supports physical health and lowers emissions.

Second, cities thrive on efficiency. Cars take up tremendous space and often carry just one passenger. Bikes, by contrast, use a fraction of that space and cause significantly less wear on infrastructure. Fewer car lanes mean reduced traffic volume over time as behavior adjusts, alleviating congestion—not worsening it.

Third, these changes make streets safer. Studies consistently show that well-designed bike infrastructure leads to fewer traffic collisions and fatalities. Cyclists separated from speeding vehicles feel safer, and drivers operate with greater awareness.

Finally, this shift reflects a cultural transformation: from car dominance to sustainable mobility. Prioritizing bike infrastructure signals that our cities value cleaner air, quieter streets, and more livable neighborhoods.

Reshaping roads isn’t just about bikes—it’s about building cities for people, not just machines. Let’s pedal forward together.

Bad news friend. The number of atheist heads of state is surprisingly low.

Are you MAGA or something? Do you not understand how attorneys bill their clients?