# Imagine how another person might respond to a given argument


prompt used: "Imagine how another person might respond, abstract, 3D, movement, swirl of colors, difference"

## description
Students could use an AI tool to imagine how someone holding a different rhetorical position from their own might react to a given argument or set of circumstances. This could be a creative exercise, where students imagine what someone from a different time period might think about a given topic or idea. Or they could think about how to communicate an idea to someone who holds a distinct, maybe even a conflicting, position on the issue.

## activity
1. Open a tool like [Character AI](beta/character.ai)
* This tool is free, but with a limit on messages.
2. Write a short paragraph describing a key concept from your field and question your chosen thinker or figure.
* This is an example of where expertise in a given field/area dictates the quality of the eventual AI creation. The more detail you can provide your chosen LLM (for this example, chatGPT 4 32K with a higher temperature, which results in more “creativity” from the bot, but also more hallucinations), the better the result.
* 
3. Ask the figure to reflect on this topic "in character"
* or you could experiment with using the AI to assume a particular historical figure's perspective (e.g., a philosopher, an artist, a public figure)
4. You can continue these conversations, which can get increasingly complex.
* This could be excellent for students attempting to formulate an opinion or practicing rhetorical debate

## related use cases
* [Assume a persona and/or anticipate counterarguments](/tvB3GJNuRk2lWtGa8rYiXQ)
---

## transcript of activity example:
* USER:
* Given the advances made in science and technology since your death, as well as the transformation of traditional theology to academia (which seems to be evolving once more to another form of capital-informed technocracy), would you still hold the same opinions on religion? Specifically, I am curious how your views have changed re: Natural Theology. You argued that it is possible to arrive at knowledge of God through reason alone. You believed that God's existence and attributes can be demonstrated through rational arguments. As "rationality" has changed, has your opinion?
* AI:
* Indeed, I maintain the same position. My arguments have been made even stronger by the development of science. Many of the principles of natural theology, for example, are now the foundation upon which certain branches of science are built. The more we understand, the more we understand how little we know. Furthermore, my position was never about having absolute, incontestable evidence. It was rather about the existence of God being the most rational option. I still hold to that.