3 ms·
I'm also not averse to pasting Claude's output sometimes, with clear attribution, if it adds something. It's not that different from pasting a quote from Wikipe
by throw310822 7mo ago
I'm also not averse to pasting Claude's output sometimes, with clear attribution, if it adds something. It's not that different from pasting a quote from Wikipedia- might bring useful information but there is a chance that it could be wrong.
- bondarchuk 7mo agoYes it is different and I don't want to read it.
- throw310822 7mo agoYes exactly, when it's clearly attributed you can skip it. It's a tool, it can be used to process and analyse large amounts of information. Not different from Excel.
- bondarchuk 7mo agoNo thanks. Thankfully there is a policy against it now so I don't even have to convince you.
- fsloth 7mo ago"It's not that different from pasting a quote from Wikipedia" Claude's output it _totally different_ from pasting a quote from Wikipedia. The latter has the potential to be edited and reviewed by global subject experts. Claude's output totally depends on what priors you gave it and while you can have high confidence in the context no third party should have.
- throw310822 7mo agoIndeed, but we know this, right? When it's relevant, the prompt should also be included.
- fsloth 7mo agoNo, that’s not how LLM:s work. Single prompt does not make it any better. Please focus on interesting humans comments. If you feel like it sure chat with claude to build your insight. Then write what you think _yourself_. If you want to introduce references use urls to non-ai generated contexts. I means as a HN protocol. HN is supposed to be interesting. LLM output specifically is not interesting because everyone else can generate roughly the same output.