Is it decent to talk with artificial intelligence from a viewpoint and halachic point of view

(And below we will refer to the known software in this field in the usual version and model, without going into all kinds of software and models of the software by their names, each of which is discussed separately).

Even though the content received from the software is mostly correct and useful, and sometimes can save certain services, and even though the company filters the content a lot, and the filtering of the content received in it is far beyond the content that can be accessed via the Internet, and even though there should be no disrespect to the holy people of Israel and Torah keepers in the software, according to standards The official and practical software, with all this, it is possible to point out two problems that should come with the use of this software.

The more noticeable problem is the addiction to it and the loss of time, especially for those who try to make their Torah their art and try not to pass the time in idle chatter, this software can interfere with the utilization of time and the loss of focus in progressing in the merits of the Torah and reverence.

The second problem is the familiarity with values that appear in content produced by those who are not Torah and Mitzvo observant, on subjects where the ruling of the Torah is known to us, and the software says otherwise, that of course their scale of values is very different from the scale of values of the Torah, and when you get too close to hear opinions regularly and continuously, the may impart a view and a worldview that is not of the Torah, and in particular young people whose worldview has not yet been shaped but is now being shaped over time.

והנה מצד פרטי הדין בזה יש דין של איסור קריאה בספרים החיצונים (סנהדרין צ) והם ספרים שיש בהם דברים כנגד חכמים (רי"ף ורא"ש ויד רמ"ה בסנהדרין ק ע"ב ועוד), ואפילו ספרי ליצנות [שיש בהם איבוד הזמן והמחשבה] אסור לקרוא (גמ' שם, ועי' רש"י שבת קמט ע"א ושו"ע הל' שבת סי' שח), ומ"מ בן סירא מותר באקראי (נ"י), [וכבר דנו בזה אם הוא היתר רק בספר בן סירא או בכל ספר שאין בו כפירה ואין בו תועלת ויתכן שמי שמרגיש חולשת הנפש מותר באקראי בכל ספר שאין בו תועלת אם צריך לבריאות נפשו, ואמנם השח שיחת חולין עובר בעשה (יומא יט ע"ב ומ"א ומ"ב סי' קנג), וכן כל ענייני ביטול תורה אסרו בגמ' ע"ז יח ע"ב עי"ש באריכות, אבל כשיש בזה צורך בריאות הנפש מותר לעתים לומר מילה או שנים וכדאמרי' בפ"ג דתענית אינשי בדיחי אנן מבדחינן עציבי, וכמו שידוע מהחזו"א על מיעוט שיחה [עי' אבות פ"ו], ויש שהורו להתיר ניגונים בספה"ע כשצריך לבריאות הנפש, ואמנם בניגונים יש נידון בפני עצמו של שמיעת ניגונים האידנא אחר החורבן בכלי אבל יש בזה גם ענין של ביטול זמן), וספרי חכמת חול של אומות העולם מותר לקרוא כשיש צורך (אג"מ, וכן מוכח בכ"מ ועי' שו"ע שם בסי' שח).

And for our case, the apparent result of this is as follows, to correspond with the artificial intelligence in matters of opinion and outlook and morals is not to be done (and everything depends on the matter), and to correspond in matters of the wisdom of the world when there is a need is permitted, and to correspond for the sake of idle chatter is prohibited, unless one does so randomly for the sake of the health of the mind that there should be room to discuss it .

That was what it was supposed to say.

But it must be discussed on the one hand if it is said that it is something close to the prohibition that the Hazu'a ordered and brought by the Gerhag, and further that it is forbidden even without a decree, and according to this 20 Hageri Boyar explains the reason for banning the internet in our time, and as the 17th the Shahal ordered that the ban on the internet in our time It is lawfully to pass over the opening of the exit [I. 17 17], which is close to the prohibition, (although it means in the Gm's name that it is not a complete prohibition instead of the necessity, but according to the interpretation of the Hazu'a a fence is close to the prohibition It is more severe and forbidden, if necessary), so the scope of the permission to correspond with the artificial intelligence must be discussed if necessary, if it is possible to say yes if it is close to prohibition.

And we need a fence, what is the fence of close to the prohibition, for this reason we did not find that it was forbidden to talk to the gentile, except for an argument with Epicurus Yisrael Damari' 26 Dafker Tapi [Sanhedrin 16 12], and on the other hand, multiple conversations with the woman mean that this should not be done in Pek Davot , and this is also not explained that there is a barrier of prohibition from the law, except that it is a way of breaking in if he accustoms himself to unnecessary conversation one or more times, and on the other hand I say that it is forbidden to look at the image of an evil person [cit. Q. The first ones 217 BCM, and on the other hand they warned not to speak Efi' with AH [Sanhedrin Nev 12], and here is to insert a book of Minot into his house E. in RAZAL BCM Dasur [Psikta Rabati and Kehalat Rabba], but There is a law of burning the book [and p. Shabbat Katz], and on the other hand putting it into a computer is not clear, and I heard on behalf of the Gramm Karp that if he enters a file of such a book into his computer (such as if he received a large collection of book files that were not filtered) that he does not open it, he does not It is prohibited, so it is impossible to know the clear fence in this.

And on the one hand here it is much easier than talking to a Gentile because there is an uncompromising filtering of the software that severely limits us from conveying to us what the Gentile says in his real life (such as the purity of the language and the purity of the morals and Milen Daziva), and yet those who use the software itself are also blocked and apart from this Filtering is more important than software, and on the other hand it is more severe than talking to a foreigner, since here the person navigates himself and talks to himself in front of software and there is no self-blocking of discomfort to pry into all kinds of topics and be dragged into a long conversation.

Therefore, if it were to be drawn and if we assume that this was held (of course only for those who recognize themselves that this is the case) that there is nothing here that provokes to engage in matters of morals and opinions, then it would not be appropriate to say that there is a prohibition to use this software as a matter of law instead of the need for intelligent matters on an irregular basis, but it is addicting To use it unnecessarily, for which there is a prohibition as in the above-mentioned Sanhedrin K.A.B., and it is necessary to know whether, since there are people who are addicted to it, everyone will be prohibited anyway, as the judges have taken regarding unfiltered internet.

However, all that is being discussed here is only if the aforementioned software is indeed blocked and filtered from inappropriate things, and if it is not blocked from these things, in which software or version will the law change.

Recently, a halachic ruling was published by several world leaders, some of whom are teachers and gentlemen, that this software should not be used at all, so I tried not to use any exaggeration in my words, and it turns out that it will take some time until the extent of the effect and damage of the thing becomes clear. to keep it away, until the matter has received a clear direction and an agreed upon approach, and even in this, simple people like me are not able to predict in advance what the scope of the matter will be, so everyone will ask their friends and ask a smart question.

לאחרונה התברר שהתוכנה אינה חסומה לגמרי משימושים אסורים, וגם הסינונים אינם יכולים לסנן הדברים ככל הצורך, ושהתוכנה מכניסה ומשחילה דעות זרות גם בשאלות סתמיות, ולכן יש לדון בחלק מהדברים בתשובה מחדש.