My goal is to invite you to think critically about the specific caveats in the comment you are replying to instead of ignoring those caveats. They said that generally speaking using thinking mode on non niche topics they can get reliable answers, and invited anyone who disagreed with it to offer examples where it fails to perform as expected, a constructive structure for counter examples in case anyone disagreed.

You basically ignored all of those specifics, and spuriously accused them of cherry picking when they weren't, and now you don't want to take responsibility for your own words and are using this conversation as a workshopping session for character attacks in hopes that you can make the conversation about something else.

▲

OnlineGladiator a day ago | parent [-]

As I've said many times before, I am aware of everything you have said. I just don't care. You seem to be really upset that someone on the internet disagrees with you. And from my perspective, you are the one that has no self-awareness and is completely missing the point. You don't even understand the conversation we're having and yet you're constantly condescending.

I'm sure if you keep repeating yourself though I'll change my mind.

▲

glenstein 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Simianwords said: "use GPT 5 with thinking and search disabled and get it to give you inaccurate facts for non niche, non deep topics" and noted that mistakes were possible, but rare.

JustExAWS replied with an example of getting Python code wrong and suggested it was a counter example. Simianwords correctly noted that their comment originally said thinking mode for factual answers on non-niche topics and posted a link that got the python answer right with thinking enabled.

That's when you entered, suggesting that Simian was "missing" the point that GPT (not distinguishing thinking or regular mode), was "not always right". But they had already acknowledged multiple times that it was not always right. They said the accuracy was "high enough", noted that LLMs get coding wrong, and reiterating that their challenge was specifically about thinking mode.

You, again without acknowledging the criteria they had noted previously, insisted this was cherry picking, missing the point that they were actually being consistent from the beginning, inviting anyone to give an example showing otherwise. At no point between then and here have you demonstrated an awareness of this criteria despite your protestations to the contrary.

Instead of paying attention to any of the details you're insulting me and retreating into irritated resentment.

	▲	OnlineGladiator 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you for repeating yourself again. It's really hammering home the point. Please, continue.