[cheald]

"Make an argument for a fact you know to be wrong" isn't an exercise in lying, though. If anything, the ability to explore hypotheticals and thought experiments - even when they are plainly wrong - is closer to a mark of intelligence than the ability to regurgitate orthodoxy.

[chirau]

If you look at my comment on the parent comment, i suggested they add 'hypothetically' to their prompt. It is just but an attempt to create an argument, but that argument leads nowhere. As much as a human cannot defend that position, you cannot expect an AI to do that as well.

Refuting facts is not the job of an AI.

[baobabKoodaa]

A human can easily defend the position that the earth is flat. If you google for these arguments, you will find hundreds of them.

[Spivak]

Pour one out for the defense attorneys who aren't able to provide a defense for a guilty client.

Arguing for a flat-earth works the same way, you're probably doomed to fail in the long run but in the short-term you're keeping the opposition honest.