4 ms·
It’s a bunch of Claude blather, and I love Claude. Just not worth copying over to HN, because the rush to get to a narrow answer to a narrow question elides the
by refulgentis 5mo ago
It’s a bunch of Claude blather, and I love Claude. Just not worth copying over to HN, because the rush to get to a narrow answer to a narrow question elides the meaningful bits, ex. what does happen during sleep deprivation. Has a “not even wrong” air simply because you’re trying to get to true/false on a narrow question then pushing your research assistant to disavow what you’re quote unquote “skeptical” of.
- sillysaurusx 5mo agoThis is little more than a fancy way of saying “Nu uh.” Such arguments are hardly convincing.
- refulgentis 5mo agoI don't understand this post. I can read it, but I don't understand it. Why do you think I'm arguing something? Again, smacks of Pauli's not even wrong. You're confusing your headspace with everyone else's and rushed to copy pasta an AI you're browbeating into disavowing things you're skeptical of to...win an argument, I guess? Based on this post? Unclear to me what the argument is, or, if I'm understanding correctly, due to the narrow focus while being self-absorbed.