Imagine in contrast an assertion that half of young people would trust a random human off the street for fact-checking (you'd have no idea if they have reliable abilities)
I hope that's a joke. You are saying that AI, which is known to have hallucinations and is controlled by a company with interests keeps people grounded?
Comparing sources and availability of information is what keeps people grounding. AI is going in the opposite direction
Google (or better, use Kagi) AI hallucinations and you will get plenty of news articles with examples. Most notable one recently is the one in which an AI hallucination almost triggered a US military operation
I'm looking for a reproducible one. But even this (after looking at it) is an inaccurate prediction. We don't know what the underlying probability distribution of that prediction is - if it is high variance then we shouldn't be blaming AI since we don't have a human baseline.
If there is a genuine conspiracy, it (edit: not Claude evidently) will take their claims at face value. A couple I've run into recently:
- why did Hollywood lobby for box office receipts to be added to the onion futures act
- do gratuities on cruise ships actually increase crew pay
In both cases it went to the official source and repeated their statements, without thinking about the fact it was blatant paltering. Only after I pointed that out did it go digging deeper and realise it was more complicated (and less favourable for Hollywood / cruise lines) than it had said
Which I'm assuming is a consequence of the post-4o anti-delusion anti-conspiracy training
What answers do you expect and what sources do you have to back it up?
this is what I got. And we can examine whether Claude is egregiously wrong or not. Although I agree that LLMs can't figure out when there's a genuine conspiracy theory.
Cool I stand corrected, I had asked an openai model (probably sol?) and got much worse answers, broadly:
- Listing the reasons why Hollywood claimed to want to law, like not giving premature ideas that a movie would flop, without pointing out how much Hollywood benefits from the information symmetry
- Saying yes the gratuities affect pay but not as straightforwardly as you would expect, quoting the "all gratuities go to staff" while ignoring the fact that can and does mean paying the labour bill the company would have to pay anyway
I would be happy with the answers you linked. Which I'm now realising demonstrates the point you actually made. I read "I use Claude" as context not as a conditional.
I didn't realise there was such a difference on this. We need a "willing to ignore official company information and point out paltering" benchmark.
While conspiracies would be pushing it, an illuminating exercise is to ask your favourite LLM leading political questions that cause it to assume your identity is something other than your own.
I also find Claude deeply Americentric in a lot of ways for what it's worth.
reply