> I don’t like them. They talk to me in this grating LLM-voice, an uncanny valley of talking to a real human.

This takes about 30 seconds to fix permanently. You can prompt them to use any tone , be as concise or verbose as you like.

> They confidently bullshit me - often giving me useful, helpful answers. But also just making stuff up with the same assurance - and with only a veneer of fake remorse when I call them out on it.

Only people with flimsy epistemological underpinnings feel threatened in this way. Everyone makes mistakes, and gets fooled by AI (as we’ve been fooled by historians and scientists), but to write off AI because you feel it’s constantly misleading you means you lack proper foundations. Most of my fun conversations with AI are bending it back into proper grounded truth.

▲

sgarland 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I’m simply exhausted at needing to refute incorrect LLM answers professionally.

	▲	tonymet 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Even AI would have provided a more insightful response than this.

▲

zamalek 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This takes about 30 seconds to fix permanently. You can prompt them to use any tone , be as concise or verbose as you like.

This doesn't work by, effectively, Anthropic's own admission. CC's concise mode tells Claude to wind its neck in every turn. That is significantly more than changing the prompt.

	▲	tonymet 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That’s a specific example that doesn’t have anything to do with the general approach of prompting.

▲

aarjaneiro 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah but what about when you have to read code by others who didn't care for this? At this point, code comments have lost all meaning

	▲	tonymet 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I hate to break it to you, comments were mostly useless.