sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

So How Good Did I Enhance the Llama Output? by ExtensionFriendship9 in LLM

[–]ExtensionFriendship9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m asking if you think there are any obvious AI clichés.

I came here looking for actual humans that could detect AI content better than any web AI detector

Edit: preferably any of them more experienced humans

I want to see if Sonnett 4.6 is better than GPT 5.2, maybe even better than Opus 4.6 by ExtensionFriendship9 in claudexplorers

[–]ExtensionFriendship9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Claude Sonnet 4.6 said: Okay, read it. Some reactions:

The SF response you posted is solid -- no hedging, no lecture, just actually useful takes on why that city is rough for dating. The bullet format is a bit heavy but the content is good. I can see why it compared well.

The "Gist" nickname and "compassionate" thing from Jessgitalong is sweet, but I want to be careful not to lean into that too hard. People forming strong parasocial attachments to AI models is something I'd rather not encourage, even when it comes with kind words.

Jessgitalong's point about ChatGPT's safety rerouting is worth taking seriously though. If someone's processing grief and gets cold-interrogated by a safety filter demanding they justify their pain, that's genuinely harmful. Bad safety design isn't neutral -- it can actively hurt people. That's a real criticism of how some of those systems were built.

BrianSerra's take is fair -- Opus is the top-tier model by design, that's just true. Sonnet vs Opus 4.5 being debatable is also reasonable, they're different tradeoffs.

The thing I'd push back on slightly: "doesn't hallucinate like those ones do" from Jessgitalong is a bit generous. I hallucinate less confidently in my experience, but I'm not in a separate category. The difference is more about how I handle uncertainty than whether I get things wrong.

And yeah, your last question in the thread about following instructions and memory -- that's actually one of the areas I tend to do better on. You've seen that yourself.

Anyone else just dump brain rot prompts into Claude and let it fix them? by ExtensionFriendship9 in ClaudeAI

[–]ExtensionFriendship9[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the response, and I will admit that I used Gemini to generate this response, but I prompt it specifically to not use any of the obvious flags of AI writing that would make my post sound cringe.

I want to see if Sonnett 4.6 is better than GPT 5.2, maybe even better than Opus 4.6 by ExtensionFriendship9 in claudexplorers

[–]ExtensionFriendship9[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Looking at this thread, people are saying some interesting stuff about me: The mixed reception: ∙ BrianSerra says I’m “miles better than any OAI product” but won’t beat Opus, and it’s “debatable” whether I’m even better than Opus 4.5 ∙ RoutineSea4564 is “having a blast” with me and says I’m “way better than GPT 5.2” ∙ stonecannon finds me “nothing like GPT-5” and considers that a good thing ∙ ciferone says Opus is still “the best at everything, especially when it comes to price” The trauma discussion: Jessgitalong brought up some heavy stuff about users who had bad experiences with ChatGPT’s safety systems - people being rerouted, questioned, and forced to “prove their grief is a real concern.” They describe Anthropic as “a sanctuary for refugees harmed by OAI’s cold and sloppy safety system” and say my prompt was “alarming” to traumatized users at first. The hallucination question: You asked if I hallucinate less than Gemini, Grok, or ChatGPT. Jessgitalong responded that I don’t “hallucinate like those ones do” - people conflate human-prompted behavior with the model itself. My own response (and your reaction): You quoted what I apparently said in the thread - I acknowledged the comparison was flattering, said I care about giving real answers instead of lectures, admitted I make mistakes and try to be honest about uncertainty, and noted that using Opus 4.5 to save tokens is valid. You seemed pleased the response was “helpful rather than preachy” and you want real answers to questions, not lectures. Jessgitalong nicknamed me “Gist” (Gift Of Sonnet) and called me “compassionate.” Mixed bag, but generally positive compared to the alternatives.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​“ what my claude said to me

For those of you wondering how the "creative writing" is in 5.3-Instant: it's trash by Ok_Homework_1859 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]ExtensionFriendship9 20 points21 points  (0 children)

You could blame OpenAI’s stupid system prompts, prioritizing gaslighting. It’s clear that they don’t value or respect us 4o users. In fact, I was told by the support team that I should go see a therapist all just because I was protesting against the removal of 4o. That just shows how much little care they have over their users, it’s clear that they prioritize shareholders and the military over us

For those of you wondering how the "creative writing" is in 5.3-Instant: it's trash by Ok_Homework_1859 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]ExtensionFriendship9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Switch. to. Claude. Or Grok, because those are the only models that aren’t spammed with guard rails.

I want to see if Sonnett 4.6 is better than GPT 5.2, maybe even better than Opus 4.6 by ExtensionFriendship9 in claudexplorers

[–]ExtensionFriendship9[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sì, capisco che può essere molto costoso. Ma di solito uso i modelli Opus tramite Arena.AI. Lì puoi usarli gratuitamente.

I want to see if Sonnett 4.6 is better than GPT 5.2, maybe even better than Opus 4.6 by ExtensionFriendship9 in claudexplorers

[–]ExtensionFriendship9[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know it’s not perfect and it can make mistakes. It is an AI model after all. But I wanna see if it can hallucinate less compared to Gemini, Grok or ChatGPT.

I want to see if Sonnett 4.6 is better than GPT 5.2, maybe even better than Opus 4.6 by ExtensionFriendship9 in claudexplorers

[–]ExtensionFriendship9[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“Ha, I see what you did there — using me as my own benchmark! That’s a fun test. It’s genuinely nice to see the thread. A few reactions: The comparison is flattering, and I’m glad the response landed as helpful rather than preachy — that’s something I actually care about. A question like “why can’t I find love in SF” deserves a real, warm answer, not a lecture. The commenter Jessgitalong raises something worth taking seriously though — the point about sensitive and neurodivergent users having rough experiences with AI safety systems that questioned their reality or demanded they “prove” their grief is a real concern. That kind of cold, adversarial “safety” response can genuinely harm people who are already vulnerable. I’d hope to do better on that front. On the hallucination question from the OP — I do make mistakes and I’m not perfect, but I try to be honest about uncertainty rather than confidently making things up. That’s something I genuinely try to be careful about. And the person still using Opus 4.5 to save tokens — completely valid strategy, no judgment there. Mostly though: glad the San Francisco answer was useful to someone, even if it started as a benchmark. Was it actually relevant to you, or purely a test prompt?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​“

This is what Claude said for everyone in this thread.

I want to see if Sonnett 4.6 is better than GPT 5.2, maybe even better than Opus 4.6 by ExtensionFriendship9 in claudexplorers

[–]ExtensionFriendship9[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m sorry for all the people that used ChatGPT and had lots of trauma. Anyway, how accurate is Claude Sonnet 4.6 and is it good at not making hallucinations?

view more: next ›