> Maybe you are not that great at using the most current LLMs or you don't want to be? I’m tired of this argument. I’ll even grant you: both sides of it. It s

> Maybe you are not that great at using the most current LLMs or you don't want to be? I’m tired of this argument. I’ll even grant you: both sides of it. It seems as though we prepared our selves to respond to llms in this manner with people memeing, or simply recognizing, that there was a “way” to ask questions to get better results early on when ranked search broadened the appeal of search engines. The reality is that both you and the op are talking about the opinion of the thing, but leaving out the thing itself. You could say “git gud”, but what if you showed op what “gud” output to you was, and they recognized it as the same sort of output that they were saying was repetitive? It’s ambiguity based on opinion. I fear so many are taking part each other. Perhaps linking to example prompts and outputs that can be directly discussed is the only way to give specificity to the ambiguous language.