RULES
The Hub is moderated for decorum. Please follow these rules while participating in The Hub:
- Be courteous and friendly to new members.
- Do not attempt to scare off new users from using the platform.
- Do advertise your Tribes and invite users to join conversations in them.
- Always Follow Our Content Policy
These rules only apply to The Hub with the exception of the content policy which is site-wide. Please observe individual tribe rules when visiting other tribes.
Sick of Rules? Want to Shit-talk?
Join The Beer Hall
Want a FLAIR next to your name? Send a message to redpillschool. Reasonable requests will be granted.
Have questions? Ask away here!
Join our chatroom for live entertainment.
As for hallucinating, it is pretty real. In your use case I'd try to search eg 'is Claude hallucinating on only user supplied data'
Ah yeah you’re right on that. I do a cycle between each input session, I vet the output for inconsistencies or hallucinations.
In one case, it had applied the model I defined for one rule set to another. I caught it, because it had introduced information that didn’t share context. Well anyway, I tightened the rule set and repeated the cycle!
using Claude
I recall @Bozza talking about Claude in the tribe for this year's April ool's joke, and @Vermillion-Rx talking abut not trusting it in the same tribe.
I don't think I'll be trusting any of those things with anything important, ever. Maybe for speeding up research, but I still would want to verify results myself.
Fuck, I remember reading about some law firm using AI (forget which one) to research a case, and it just made shit up. Cost them millions to fix things after they trusted it and ran with its results.
That's the only news last moth that I had to reread a header and go to verify
@Typo-MAGAshiv I should add; I input the data myself, I define the rule set and the parameters, objective and goal of the project and ask it to make it nice little displays that visualise everything I’ve input into it.
@MentORPHEUS That is simply hilarious. What a fool!
There is no honour in whores these days! poor bloke pays $25K to indulge his perversion and the whore sells him out.
My take is that people really need to watch what they get into. No one is born wanting to do that. He is obviously attracted to women, he just got into kinky forbidden stuff, got off on it and just supersized.
As a right wing pretty traditional guy I think "Oh dear what a pity to do that to yourself" I think that when people get too puritan, you increase the risk of people craving to dip their noses in dirt. To me its self evident that being a bender is to be discouraged. If you make it utterly forbidden you just cause misery. It should simply be forbidden to promote being a bender and it should be regarded as unmanly and ridiculous. That is enough to reduce the risk of this sort of thing.
You will still get it in preachers' and politicians' families because these guys are fake holier than thou con artists who act a role and fear seeing it crumble. This makes smut amazingly forbidden and attractive to them but everyone else will be OK.
Oh I do love to see the holier than thou turn out to be benders or whore addicts or whatever!
Read More@Stigma there's an independent add-on of sorts called Neanderthal to make Claude communicate with a user shortly.
Few levels of Neanderthal as well, is should be avail from github.
As for hallucinating, it is pretty real. In your use case I'd try to search eg 'is Claude hallucinating on only user supplied data'
@Typo-MAGAshiv Again not to doxx myself, but my use case isn’t looking for it to create anything factual outside of formatting and display metrics so I don’t have much experience on Claude hallucinating. Its soul purpose is to streamline the most tedious tasks out of my way, but also maintain a rule set and cohesive idea better than I might do myself. I often run with a tangent and get distracted so that’s a boon.
I’m thinking that they purposefully make Claude obtuse about your project sometimes. It’ll randomly forget where a directory is located and make out that it didn’t do that step. You burn some tokens clarifying memory and context. And that’s the rub, the most basic subscription is quite expensive and the input/output allowance is quite harsh.
I just get here mid convo, no context
I suppose the ONLY thing it buys you is the “bare minimum” from them, yes?
No, it's worse than that.
PROVIDER BEHAVIOUR IS ACTUALLY A TURN OFF.
This is the dirty secret of female sexuality. Commitment and provisioning triggers "make him wait" feelings and ultimately kills her sex drive.
Women are hard wired to fuck exciting men.
Provisioning behaviour is associated with friends and family. Women feel it as weakness, not attractiveness.
She WANTS money.... of course she does... but she is not attracted to men who give her things or do things for her.
You can understand why women do not want this secret to get out :)
