you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    That's true regardless of the sources someone used.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 23 hours ago (1 child)

    So what you meant to say was “if you claim that you legitimately researched but you mention Claude - I will assume you did not”.

    Which is valid. But is not what you said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 21 hours ago (1 child)

    More accurately, if you claim you used Claude, I will assume absolutely anything produced with it has a high chance of being rife with errors. If you provided citations for every last detail and then said Claude put it together, I wouldn't trust it until I've personally verified the sources because not only will it hallucinate details, it'll hallucinate sources. Anything produced with it is inherently untrustworthy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 16 hours ago

    To add on to what you said, i would trust the same thing more if it was just a human saying it was correct and implicitly staking their reputation on it, vs if the same person said, "i checked with Claude and it agreed."

    To me, this means the person turned off their brain and is invoking Claude's reputation, which also means i shouldn't trust that person's judgment either.

  • source
  • parent