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”.
Right. They MEANT “if you mention Claude I don’t trust anything else you said”.
They just didn’t SAY that.
I’m not a fan of AI and don’t use it - however I can’t say I have found humans to be particularly clear, accurate or reliable either. Myself included… we all make mistakes. 🙂
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”.
Right. They MEANT “if you mention Claude I don’t trust anything else you said”.
They just didn’t SAY that.
I’m not a fan of AI and don’t use it - however I can’t say I have found humans to be particularly clear, accurate or reliable either. Myself included… we all make mistakes. 🙂