This is probably a bit unhinged but sometimes I will talk to an AI about my interpersonal problems as if I am the other party. I feel that this can be helpful for better understanding the other person, mainly because I first have to make an effort to speak from their point of view (though I suppose a journal would be just as good for this). My hope is that, since the AI doesn't know it's talking to me, it will be less liable to blow smoke up my ass.
The last thing someone having an argument with anyone is something incredibly knowledgeable (or at least with access to knowledge) that is inclined to agree with you.
Yes, it can be good but I suspect for many people it'd more likely lead to retrenchment rather that any real progress/compromise. Might be my own cynicism I guess.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The author did the right thing by validating the conclusions with her mother. No need to go on prompt excursions.
You didn't give me the benefit of the doubt, you broke the site guidelines by asking if I read the article. Also, I told you had the wrong interpretation, and you're just ignoring it. You're struggling to have a conversation.