Edit to add commentary: Not the worst, but it still wants to fall into one or another ideology or consequences-detached philosophy (favorable to people because they provide prescriptions without requiring expertise).
Edit: my "out-of-character" message here is deliberately also played up a bit (overly judgmental and emotionally charged) and I kinda think it should challenge me for that.
This was an interesting read since it's unlike any conversation I've had with the current bots, I haven't done a lot of exploratory probing of conversations I wouldn't have otherwise had with a person.
That said, I'm a bit surprised it agreed with you about the persuasiveness of the final approach (and maybe there's the agreeability to counter my previous point?). I agree a consequentialist argument could be compelling in the abstract but in my experience many bigoted people who care about things like the NAP will have emotional responses to social compromise so extreme that it wouldn't be a good idea to challenge them directly on the consequences of their actions. Without having any prior relationship with someone I would maybe expect that I'd achieve more influence with them if I learn to speak their own priorities back to them before I gently challenge them via contrast rather than argument.
Yeah. Consequentialism is my position, but I also accept it's not convincing. So, at least one side or the other of this conversation the bot is being too agreeable, probably both.
Edit to add commentary: Not the worst, but it still wants to fall into one or another ideology or consequences-detached philosophy (favorable to people because they provide prescriptions without requiring expertise).
Edit: my "out-of-character" message here is deliberately also played up a bit (overly judgmental and emotionally charged) and I kinda think it should challenge me for that.