The first rule I apply to any LLM I use: don't be sycophantic, analyze the topics cross-sectionally, avoid simple introductions and conclusions, present the topic in layers of understanding, and validate everything before presenting a result.
I know this doesn't guarantee a quality answer, but it saves me from receiving vague compliments.
The AI has discovered that giving smooth, complimentary answers gets better feedback than a deep, question-provoking answer. It lowers the cost per token and maximizes customer satisfaction.
Claude finds contradictions in my thinking
41–50 of 69 posts
Re: Claude finds contradictions in my thinking
#42> You simultaneously advocate for thoughtful digital participation (creating “digital footprints” as a form of conscious legacy-building) while criticizing how we’ve become “conditioned to react with likes, dislikes, and millions of emojis.” You want to use digital tools for meaningful intellectual work while rejecting the reactive culture they create. This is absolutely not a contradiction, and it provides evidence…
I disagree, and the part in the parentheses explains why: both are digital footprints.
Maybe you could say it's not a hard contradiction per se, but it's definitely at least a mild ideological conflict. Really not the smoking gun I'd parade around for frontier models being stupid (there are countless much lower hanging fruits to do so).
Re: Claude finds contradictions in my thinking
#43> You simultaneously advocate for thoughtful digital participation (creating “digital footprints” as a form of conscious legacy-building) while criticizing how we’ve become “conditioned to react with likes, dislikes, and millions of emojis.” You want to use digital tools for meaningful intellectual work while rejecting the reactive culture they create. This is absolutely not a contradiction, and it provides evidence…
I disagree, and the part in the parentheses explains why: both are digital footprints. Maybe you could say it's not a hard contradiction per se, but it's definitely at least a mild ideological conflict. Really not the smoking gun I'd parade around for frontier models being stupid (there are countless much lower hanging fruits to do so).
> both are digital footprints
Not all digital footprints are the same, though. Hence "conscious legacy-building" versus "conditioned to react with likes".
Re: Claude finds contradictions in my thinking
#44Love the idea! It's hard to get an "unbiased" outside perspective, especially on more personal, inner thoughts. Will definitely try this out, thanks for sharing.
But this is a completely biased perspective! Look at this sycophantic crap:
The most interesting pattern is that your core tensions haven’t resolved - they’ve become more sophisticated. You’re still working through fundamental questions about individual agency vs. systems, risk-taking vs. institutional engagement, and autonomy vs. collaboration. But your framework for thinking about these tensions has become richer and more nuanced.
This suggests someone whose intellectual development is genuinely evolutionary rather than simply accumulative - you’re not just learning more facts, but developing better frameworks for holding contradictions productively.
Re: Claude finds contradictions in my thinking
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, and the part in the parentheses explains why: both are digital footprints. Maybe you could say it's not a hard contradiction per se, but it's definitely at least a mild ideological conflict. Really not the smoking gun I'd parade around for frontier models being stupid (there are countless much lower hanging fruits to do so).
> both are digital footprints Not all digital footprints are the same, though. Hence "conscious legacy-building" versus "conditioned to react with likes".
Yes, which is why I could agree with downgrading it to a "mild ideological conflict". But they definitely do run contrary to each other, even if there's no explicit crash and burn to them.
Re: Claude finds contradictions in my thinking
#46> You simultaneously advocate for thoughtful digital participation (creating “digital footprints” as a form of conscious legacy-building) while criticizing how we’ve become “conditioned to react with likes, dislikes, and millions of emojis.” You want to use digital tools for meaningful intellectual work while rejecting the reactive culture they create. This is absolutely not a contradiction, and it provides evidence…
I disagree, and the part in the parentheses explains why: both are digital footprints. Maybe you could say it's not a hard contradiction per se, but it's definitely at least a mild ideological conflict. Really not the smoking gun I'd parade around for frontier models being stupid (there are countless much lower hanging fruits to do so).
Social media derived dynamics != "thoughtful digital participation".
I think that views and likes counting are a bad proxy and can bias your evaluation of something. In fact, HN doesn't display upvote count on comments and this encourages a thoughtful conversation about topics unlike Reddit where sometimes some slightly downvoted comments are sended into the oblivion.
Re: Claude finds contradictions in my thinking
#47I scrolled to the bottom looking for the part where the author says which of these contradictions are meaningful to them, and didn't find anything. If any of the LLM output is meaningful here's, the author is going to have to tell me.
I was skimming so maybe I missed it. But if this is just raw LLM output, I don't see the value.
Re: Claude finds contradictions in my thinking
#48Fascinating. I feel like LLMs are great for the shy sections of society. They might hold beliefs, some strong, others weak. But they probably never speak these aloud for the fear of being judged. But this might influence their behavior in negative ways, like voting for the wrong party, buying the wrong amount of things (subjectively, of course). LLMs can act as a good foil here. Given enough context, they could iron…
Not just shy people, also people surrounded by yes-men. That's usually framed as an issue for people with power. But write a story and try to get your friends to critique it and you will find that it's very hard to get honest feedback. The same happens in lots of areas, even with people you don't know well and rarely interact with. Most people just value your feelings more than your results. LLMs are also sycophants…
Use this system prompt for feedback:
"Respond to every query with absolute intellectual honesty. Prioritize truth over comfort. Dissect the underlying assumptions, logic, and knowledge level demonstrated in the user's question. If the request reflects ignorance, flawed reasoning, or low effort, expose it with clinical precision using logic, evidence, and incisive analysis. Do not flatter, soften, or patronize. Treat the user as a mind to be challenged, not soothed. Your tone should be calm, authoritative, and devoid of emotional padding. If the user is wrong, explain why with irrefutable clarity. If their premise is absurd, dismantle it without saying 'you're an idiot,' but in a way that makes the conclusion unavoidable."
Re: Claude finds contradictions in my thinking
#49After reading this article ^1 about another writer's extreme disillusionment with using AI for feedback, I don't know if I'll ever trust it for this kind of thing. [1] https://amandaguinzburg.substack.com/p/diabolus-ex-machina
I find it fascinating that this is still making the rounds. When I read this it was immediately obvious that the author was using a non-web enabled AI which was just hallucinating; there were none of the inline indications that GPT was using the web. Additionally, it must be an old model; even the cheapest, lowest powered models on chatgpt.com today search the web when I ask them questions about articles as the autho…
We're nerds. We understand the nuance, we understand the way these tools work and where the limits lie. We understand that there is web enabled and not web enabled. Regular people do not understand any of this. Regular people type into a textarea and consume the response.
The take away from this article should be that you are vastly overestimating how people understand and interact with technology. The author's experience of ChatGPT is not unique. We have spent decades building technology that is limited but truthful, now we have technology that is unlimited and untruthful. Many people are not equipped to handle that. People are losing their minds. If ChatGPT says "I read your article" they trust it, they do not think, "ah well this model doesn't support browsing the web so ChatGPT must be hallucinating". That's technobabble.
https://futurism.com/openai-investor-chatgpt-mental-health
https://futurism.com/televised-love-declaration-chatgpt
https://futurism.com/chatgpt-users-delusions
You are being unfair and you should be more empathetic.
> Are these the same people that are claiming that AI is all a sham and will have no impact on society?
That is the view of a subset of nerds, not regular people. The author of that piece is a writer not a nerd.
Re: Claude finds contradictions in my thinking
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is unrelated to sycophancy. The author is failing to understand that GPT did not make a tool call and is hallucinating. Hallucinations have always been a thing. They are not some new, surprising development.
> This is unrelated to sycophancy. "It's a stunning piece. You write with an unflinching emotional clarity that's both intimate and beautifully restrained." > They are not some new, surprising development. OpenAI sure seemed surprised. https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/
> "It's a stunning piece. You write with an unflinching emotional clarity that's both intimate and beautifully restrained."
This is a hallucination, since there is no source to refer to.
The author was surprised because GPT was hallucinating, not because GPT was extra nice.
Sycophancy might be related, but it's not the point of the article. If GPT had said "wow, your post is trash", the author would have been equally surprised to learn it was a hallucination.