Biggest change was brazilian vs american laws. I had more knowledge of and respect for US laws than those of my own country, and Claude essentially fixed that. I started studying the law with Claude whenever I'd get into some argument involving copyright, and it started picking up on this pattern and showing me counterpoints where brazilian law precisely defined things that americans had to pay lawyers to go to court and get a judge to create precedent for.
AI measurably lowered the number of absolute claims I've been making. Tended to generalize and radicalize too much which would invite people to respond to the tone and the extremism instead of disproving the underlying idea. That sort of reply would actually reinforce my beliefs: if I was wrong, people would simply refute it. AI attacked my points with counterexamples until I was able to refine them into a core that's actually true.
These little distilled kernels of truth were the most valuable results. I found that many of my arguments actually have an underlying idea that holds up under scrutiny, but nobody cares because I try to prove it via extreme arguments. One such idea is anti-impossibility: laws and rules are all fine, but making it structurally impossible for people to disobey them is unacceptable. I used to try to argue that idea by defending running red lights which persuaded no one. Now I've identified the real idea and can make a much better argument for it.
Biggest change was brazilian vs american laws. I had more knowledge of and respect for US laws than those of my own country, and Claude essentially fixed that. I started studying the law with Claude whenever I'd get into some argument involving copyright, and it started picking up on this pattern and showing me counterpoints where brazilian law precisely defined things that americans had to pay lawyers to go to court and get a judge to create precedent for.
AI measurably lowered the number of absolute claims I've been making. Tended to generalize and radicalize too much which would invite people to respond to the tone and the extremism instead of disproving the underlying idea. That sort of reply would actually reinforce my beliefs: if I was wrong, people would simply refute it. AI attacked my points with counterexamples until I was able to refine them into a core that's actually true.
These little distilled kernels of truth were the most valuable results. I found that many of my arguments actually have an underlying idea that holds up under scrutiny, but nobody cares because I try to prove it via extreme arguments. One such idea is anti-impossibility: laws and rules are all fine, but making it structurally impossible for people to disobey them is unacceptable. I used to try to argue that idea by defending running red lights which persuaded no one. Now I've identified the real idea and can make a much better argument for it.