Saying you “invalidate” content that is “properly researched and legitimately correct” = what?

I read it as meaning the definition of the person producing the content of “properly researched and legitimately correct” rather than one's own.

Content produced by somebody who claims it has been “properly researched and legitimately correct” and that person thinks Claude is a proper research and validation tool, should be treated as invalid until proven otherwise.

It's like when a Junior level professional comes to you with something and says "I made sure this is all correct" - one can't really trust that the thing is indeed "all correct".

As the one says above it is "Appeal to Authority" by adding Claude, or ChatrGPT for the more base level folks, from what I have seen.

Somehow they assume that putting that in will somehow make their words more valid, but hearing it makes me question everything, and dismiss potential valid points made alongside it.

Because we don't see all that research, we just see a comment where you said you asked the hallucination machine, so now, if I want to use anything you said, I have to go duplicate all that research before I can trust it.

Because upvotes