The thing is those were much larger ideas/arguments that could be picked apart by sturdy logical targeting. My experience is narrow scope prompts (that still re

The thing is those were much larger ideas/arguments that could be picked apart by sturdy logical targeting. My experience is narrow scope prompts (that still require chain-of-thought) that are much less lofty defeating models. No symposium ever entertained these prompts, because we all know the pigeon hole principle for very basic setups, for example. Humans a lot of the time do just come up with the right answer. We just don’t ask those questions much because we answer them ourselves a lot of the time. Though I only see one small angle with my work.