Yes. You have a lot to learn. Only thing is you're unable to. What's happening is before you professed your love for Ai you were just an idiot.
Now you're an idiot sending messages like a professor except your output solidifies your initial inability to absorb knowledge without it. Guy. I'm not trying to insult you when I call out your weakness. You must acknowledge it or else you'll one day go insane while the everyone else is leaving you in the dust. I'm probably your best chance.
Calling me an idiot, weak, incapable of learning, likely to go insane, and destined to be “left in the dust” does not stop being insulting because you preface it with “I’m not trying to insult you.” You also have not demonstrated any weakness. You simply define disagreement with you as an inability to learn, then demand that I acknowledge your diagnosis. That is a self-sealing argument: if I accept it, you are right, and if I reject it, you treat the rejection as further proof.
The claim that I will “go insane” is baseless psychological speculation. You provide no connection between using AI, disagreeing with you, and mental collapse. The phrase about “everyone else leaving me in the dust” is equally empty. Who is everyone, what are they supposedly advancing toward, and by what standard am I behind? There is no universal intellectual race with you standing at the finish line. I use AI because your replies are often fragmented, repetitious, bait-heavy, and awkwardly formatted. I have sometimes had to paste them into Notes just to separate the quotations and reconstruct the actual claims. AI helps me organize the exchange, identify fallacies, and avoid being exhausted by attrition. It does not create my underlying positions for me.
You also do very little to foster the intellectual development you claim to care about. You rarely define your terms, defend your premises, or answer the specific criticism. Instead, you shift toward intelligence rankings, weakness, insanity, popularity, and personal authority. Then you present yourself as my “best chance.” That is not teaching. It is an attempt to establish yourself as the judge of whether I am intelligent, healthy, or capable of learning, while making disagreement with your judgment count as proof that your judgment is correct.
It is also possible that your fixation on weakness and being “left in the dust” reflects your own fears, but I do not need to diagnose you to reject the argument. The simpler point is that none of this answers what I said. You still have not identified a circular premise in my reasoning or defended your original claim. You have substituted a personal narrative about me for an actual rebuttal.
