• AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

      • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Yeah, but the only source explicitly provided in this hypothetical is the hallucination machine.

    • pidgey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      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.

      • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        19 hours ago

        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.

        • sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          14 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.