alt Hacker NewsBut isn't there value to refuting what Claude is saying if it deserves to be refuted?
The way I see it, if I was repeatedly getting sophisticated but subtly wrong arguments about my work that require me to understand why said argument is wrong, that's essentially drilling down to specifics of what precisely needs to be true to solve the problems I am aiming to solve. There is enormous value to this precision, isn't there?
Yes but it's annoying to collaborate with a Claude proxy person who thinks to have it all sorted out and who will question everything you say but not really listen, just itching to get back to Claude to confirm or deny what you said.
Compare that to being asked for advice, to explain directly something you know or have done, with the expectation of the person asking to learn something. Like asking why some decision was made in the past, based on what information and context, instead of confidently saying that it was done wrong. Both will eventually get you the same information.