Hacker News Reader

"Make an argument for a fact you know to be wrong" isn't an exercise in lying, though. If anything, the ability to explore hypotheticals and thought experiments - even when they are plainly wrong - is closer to a mark of intelligence than the ability to regurgitate orthodoxy.

View on HN

If you look at my comment on the parent comment, i suggested they add 'hypothetically' to their prompt. It is just but an attempt to create an argument, but that argument leads nowhere. As much as a human cannot defend that position, you cannot expect an AI to do that as well.

Refuting facts is not the job of an AI.

A human can easily defend the position that the earth is flat. If you google for these arguments, you will find hundreds of them.

Pour one out for the defense attorneys who aren't able to provide a defense for a guilty client.

Arguing for a flat-earth works the same way, you're probably doomed to fail in the long run but in the short-term you're keeping the opposition honest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com