4 ms·

Wow, I am impressed, in particular by the human quality. I discussed some literature I was very familiar with. It did feel like conversing with a professor, or

Wow, I am impressed, in particular by the human quality. I discussed some literature I was very familiar with. It did feel like conversing with a professor, or at least a very informed and articulate layperson. So in terms of discussing things I know, it's fantastic. I still feel insecure about believing what it says about topics I don't know. Edit: Wow. I am having an incredibly stimulating conversation about T.S. Eliot's poetry with Claude. It offers some interpretations which definitely feel like an AI might, but they are entirely plausible too, and when I share my take, it self corrects and demonstrates what appears to be a deep and thoughtful understanding. I am enriched.

vagabund 4y ago
That's understandable. To give some more concrete examples: - I asked it about the advantages and disadvantages of different candidate fuels for nuclear fusion, and it correctly produced the reaction products of every combination, down to the MeV. When I tried this with ChatGPT it came back with invented, seemingly random answers. - Asking ChatGPT for movie recommendations, even with broad guidelines, usually returns at least one hallucination and often misattributed directors or countries of origin. I asked Claude for recommendations that dealt with life in rural China and the experience of rapid modernization and it gave several accurate and precise responses [0] - I asked ChatGPT to return two versions of a poem about a deer at the edge of a tree line in the hour before daybreak, one by Wallace Stevens and the other by Yeats. The two returned were stylistically identical, though still pretty impressive. Claude's were clearly more influenced by the poets' verse, and it offered detailed explanations for its choices. [0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512201/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512201/, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3907314/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3907314/, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105197/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105197/, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1114277/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1114277/

vagabund 4y ago

That's understandable. To give some more concrete examples: - I asked it about the advantages and disadvantages of different candidate fuels for nuclear fusion, and it correctly produced the reaction products of every combination, down to the MeV. When I tried this with ChatGPT it came back with invented, seemingly random answers. - Asking ChatGPT for movie recommendations, even with broad guidelines, usually returns at least one hallucination and often misattributed directors or countries of origin. I asked Claude for recommendations that dealt with life in rural China and the experience of rapid modernization and it gave several accurate and precise responses [0] - I asked ChatGPT to return two versions of a poem about a deer at the edge of a tree line in the hour before daybreak, one by Wallace Stevens and the other by Yeats. The two returned were stylistically identical, though still pretty impressive. Claude's were clearly more influenced by the poets' verse, and it offered detailed explanations for its choices. [0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512201/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512201/, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3907314/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3907314/, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105197/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105197/, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1114277/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1114277/