Using AI to be more Diplomatic!!

#1 · October 5, 2025, 3:17 pm

Quote from Steve on October 5, 2025, 3:17 pm
Its amazing what AI can do. Besides really useful stuff like create philatelic images, compile philatelic reseach, transcribe and translate letters and colourise B/W photos and postcards. I recently discovered that AI it can also advise you how to deal with difficult people, including the over-sensitive and prickly, the egotistical, the resentful and be more diplomatic to those who speak with forked tongues.

Here is a real life example of how AI can smooth troubled conversations with thoughtful and polite responses.

Some background
Recently, the SA Philately Club was contacted for advice on die proofs of the 1910 2½d 'Opening of Parliament' stamp. My first thought was that they were cut-outs of reprinted facsimiles. I did not forcefully express this opinion at the time as I could not find my own facsimiles from which they might have been cut out. As a result, I could not make an immediate comparison and so I gave a rather long and inconclusive answer. I said that they could be genuine but also that I did not know enough about the subject to give an opinion.

As a result I referred the enquirer to Russell Boezak whose display can be viewed on the SAPC website. (See Displays). Indeed, it was Russell's display that had bought the enquirer to ask his question of the SAPC. I also referred him to experts at SACS who have a superb collection of 1910 2½d 'Opening of Parliament' stamps. I imagined that SACS would appreciate the interest of a potential new SACS member. I said in my email to the enquirer that "there may be some info on die proofs on the SACS website (there is!) and or in old copies of the Springbok magazine. For any ex-South African living in the UK who is interested in Union of South Africa stamps SACS offers a lot." I thought that I was being helpful to both SACS and the enquirer. My email to the experts was forwarded by them to a SACS committee member whom I now know has been secretly antagonistic to me long before I quit as SACS' webmaster.

I received the following reply. "I see you have gone into some depth regarding Xxxxxx question. Well, those “proofs” are cut from a 1976 miniature sheet issued by the PFSA for the National Exhibition, so you might want to remove that post! (This refers to my answer on the SAPC site which is none of his business and sadly a source of resentment to him and some others at SACS.). I’ve answered his question directly, already via a different website!!" I was disappointed with this reply. I wondered why he could not tell me which website he had posted his reply on. I thought there was some irritabilty in this reply and decided to ask AI (ChatGPT) for its opinion.

Using AI, in this case ChatGPT, to anaylse hidden neanings in statements.

I fed his emailed reply into ChatGPT. It's dead simple and straightforward to do. I was surprised by the quick result. More importantly, I was greatly impressed by the skill of its analysis and the quality of its reply.

ChatGPT replied: That message sounds a bit curt and corrective, almost like the writer is chastising or admonishing someone for duplicating information or posting something they think is unnecessary. Here’s a breakdown of the tone and meaning:

“I see you have gone into some depth regarding Xxxxx’s question.”
→ This starts out neutrally but slightly condescending — implying that the person might have over-explained or gone further than needed.

“Well, those ‘proofs’ are cut from a 1976 miniature sheet issued by the PFSA for the National Exhibition...”
→ This is the factual correction. The writer is asserting their knowledge, possibly to show authority or to clarify a misunderstanding.

“...so you might want to remove that post!”
→ This part makes it more direct and somewhat brusque — they’re telling the recipient to delete their contribution, likely because it duplicates or conflicts with what they see as the correct answer.

“I’ve answered his question directly, already via a different website!!”
→ The double exclamation marks emphasize irritation or self-importance — the person feels they’ve already handled it elsewhere and that the new post was redundant.

👉 Overall tone:
Defensive or territorial (about being the “one” who answered the question).
Slightly patronizing and dismissive
Not overtly rude, but abrupt and lacking warmth

If you’re asking how to respond to this message, I can help you draft a polite reply that de-escalates the tone — would you like that?

I replied: Yes, please. (I always try to be unfailingly polite, even to AI robots).

ChatGPT replied: Here’s a calm, polite, and professional way to reply — it acknowledges the other person’s input without feeding into the defensiveness:

Option 1 — Neutral and courteous:
Thanks for the clarification — I appreciate the additional information about the 1976 miniature sheet. I wasn’t aware you’d already answered the question elsewhere. No problem, I’ll leave it at that.

Option 2 — Slightly more assertive but still polite:
Thanks for pointing that out. I was simply trying to help by providing some context for Shelton Botha’s question. I appreciate your clarification regarding the 1976 miniature sheet.

Option 3 — If you want to keep it very brief and professional:
Understood, thanks for the clarification about the PFSA issue and for letting me know.

Would you like me to tailor the reply to sound more formal (for a philatelic forum, for instance) or more conversational (for a hobbyist discussion)?

I replied: Yes, both please.

ChatGPT replied: Here are both versions for you to choose from:

Formal version (for a philatelic forum or professional exchange):
Thank you for clarifying the origin of those proofs and for noting that they were cut from the 1976 PFSA miniature sheet issued for the National Exhibition. I wasn’t aware that the question had already been addressed elsewhere, but I appreciate your explanation.

Conversational version (for a hobbyist or casual discussion):
Thanks for clearing that up! I didn’t realize those were from the 1976 PFSA miniature sheet or that you’d already answered the question elsewhere. Appreciate the info.

Would you like me to make either of these sound slightly more diplomatic (for example, if the person’s tone was a bit sharp and you want to smooth things over)?

I replied: Please make more diplomatic.

ChatGPT replied: Here are diplomatically refined versions of both, designed to defuse any tension while keeping you sounding composed, friendly, and confident:

🪶 Formal & Diplomatic Version:
Thank you for the clarification regarding the 1976 PFSA miniature sheet — that’s very helpful information. I hadn’t realized the question had already been addressed elsewhere. I appreciate you taking the time to point that out and share the background.

✅ Why it works: It acknowledges their correction gracefully, shows appreciation, and subtly shifts the tone from “you’re wrong” to “thanks for helping.”

💬 Conversational & Diplomatic Version:
Thanks for the info — that’s good to know about the 1976 PFSA miniature sheet. I didn’t realize you’d already covered the question elsewhere, but I appreciate you sharing the details.

✅ Why it works: It’s warm, polite, and smooths over the other person’s abruptness without sounding defensive or sarcastic.

So, there you go. After first running your next email through a spell-checker, you might want to run it through AI afterwards.

Its amazing what AI can do. Besides really useful stuff like create philatelic images, compile philatelic reseach, transcribe and translate letters and colourise B/W photos and postcards. I recently discovered that AI it can also advise you how to deal with difficult people, including the over-sensitive and prickly, the egotistical, the resentful and be more diplomatic to those who speak with forked tongues.

Here is a real life example of how AI can smooth troubled conversations with thoughtful and polite responses.

Some background
Recently, the SA Philately Club was contacted for advice on die proofs of the 1910 2½d 'Opening of Parliament' stamp. My first thought was that they were cut-outs of reprinted facsimiles. I did not forcefully express this opinion at the time as I could not find my own facsimiles from which they might have been cut out. As a result, I could not make an immediate comparison and so I gave a rather long and inconclusive answer. I said that they could be genuine but also that I did not know enough about the subject to give an opinion.

As a result I referred the enquirer to Russell Boezak whose display can be viewed on the SAPC website. (See Displays). Indeed, it was Russell's display that had bought the enquirer to ask his question of the SAPC. I also referred him to experts at SACS who have a superb collection of 1910 2½d 'Opening of Parliament' stamps. I imagined that SACS would appreciate the interest of a potential new SACS member. I said in my email to the enquirer that "there may be some info on die proofs on the SACS website (there is!) and or in old copies of the Springbok magazine. For any ex-South African living in the UK who is interested in Union of South Africa stamps SACS offers a lot." I thought that I was being helpful to both SACS and the enquirer. My email to the experts was forwarded by them to a SACS committee member whom I now know has been secretly antagonistic to me long before I quit as SACS' webmaster.

I received the following reply. "I see you have gone into some depth regarding Xxxxxx question. Well, those “proofs” are cut from a 1976 miniature sheet issued by the PFSA for the National Exhibition, so you might want to remove that post! (This refers to my answer on the SAPC site which is none of his business and sadly a source of resentment to him and some others at SACS.). I’ve answered his question directly, already via a different website!!" I was disappointed with this reply. I wondered why he could not tell me which website he had posted his reply on. I thought there was some irritabilty in this reply and decided to ask AI (ChatGPT) for its opinion.

Using AI, in this case ChatGPT, to anaylse hidden neanings in statements.

I fed his emailed reply into ChatGPT. It's dead simple and straightforward to do. I was surprised by the quick result. More importantly, I was greatly impressed by the skill of its analysis and the quality of its reply.

ChatGPT replied: That message sounds a bit curt and corrective, almost like the writer is chastising or admonishing someone for duplicating information or posting something they think is unnecessary. Here’s a breakdown of the tone and meaning:

“I see you have gone into some depth regarding Xxxxx’s question.”
→ This starts out neutrally but slightly condescending — implying that the person might have over-explained or gone further than needed.

“Well, those ‘proofs’ are cut from a 1976 miniature sheet issued by the PFSA for the National Exhibition...”
→ This is the factual correction. The writer is asserting their knowledge, possibly to show authority or to clarify a misunderstanding.

“...so you might want to remove that post!”
→ This part makes it more direct and somewhat brusque — they’re telling the recipient to delete their contribution, likely because it duplicates or conflicts with what they see as the correct answer.

“I’ve answered his question directly, already via a different website!!”
→ The double exclamation marks emphasize irritation or self-importance — the person feels they’ve already handled it elsewhere and that the new post was redundant.

👉 Overall tone:
Defensive or territorial (about being the “one” who answered the question).
Slightly patronizing and dismissive
Not overtly rude, but abrupt and lacking warmth

If you’re asking how to respond to this message, I can help you draft a polite reply that de-escalates the tone — would you like that?

I replied: Yes, please. (I always try to be unfailingly polite, even to AI robots).

ChatGPT replied: Here’s a calm, polite, and professional way to reply — it acknowledges the other person’s input without feeding into the defensiveness:

Option 1 — Neutral and courteous:
Thanks for the clarification — I appreciate the additional information about the 1976 miniature sheet. I wasn’t aware you’d already answered the question elsewhere. No problem, I’ll leave it at that.

Option 2 — Slightly more assertive but still polite:
Thanks for pointing that out. I was simply trying to help by providing some context for Shelton Botha’s question. I appreciate your clarification regarding the 1976 miniature sheet.

Option 3 — If you want to keep it very brief and professional:
Understood, thanks for the clarification about the PFSA issue and for letting me know.

Would you like me to tailor the reply to sound more formal (for a philatelic forum, for instance) or more conversational (for a hobbyist discussion)?

I replied: Yes, both please.

ChatGPT replied: Here are both versions for you to choose from:

Formal version (for a philatelic forum or professional exchange):
Thank you for clarifying the origin of those proofs and for noting that they were cut from the 1976 PFSA miniature sheet issued for the National Exhibition. I wasn’t aware that the question had already been addressed elsewhere, but I appreciate your explanation.

Conversational version (for a hobbyist or casual discussion):
Thanks for clearing that up! I didn’t realize those were from the 1976 PFSA miniature sheet or that you’d already answered the question elsewhere. Appreciate the info.

Would you like me to make either of these sound slightly more diplomatic (for example, if the person’s tone was a bit sharp and you want to smooth things over)?

I replied: Please make more diplomatic.

ChatGPT replied: Here are diplomatically refined versions of both, designed to defuse any tension while keeping you sounding composed, friendly, and confident:

🪶 Formal & Diplomatic Version:
Thank you for the clarification regarding the 1976 PFSA miniature sheet — that’s very helpful information. I hadn’t realized the question had already been addressed elsewhere. I appreciate you taking the time to point that out and share the background.

✅ Why it works: It acknowledges their correction gracefully, shows appreciation, and subtly shifts the tone from “you’re wrong” to “thanks for helping.”

💬 Conversational & Diplomatic Version:
Thanks for the info — that’s good to know about the 1976 PFSA miniature sheet. I didn’t realize you’d already covered the question elsewhere, but I appreciate you sharing the details.

✅ Why it works: It’s warm, polite, and smooths over the other person’s abruptness without sounding defensive or sarcastic.

So, there you go. After first running your next email through a spell-checker, you might want to run it through AI afterwards.

Jamie Smith and dncom@mweb.co.za have reacted to this post.