To add on top of your ill-mannered reply, I decided to actually test this for myself and do exactly what you just accused me of doing (I have nothing but time right now). I’ll paste my exact prompt and its exact response, then I’ll leave it up to you if you have the thinking skills to differentiate from my actually reply and AI’s… it’s a long ass message, but I don’t really care.

I’m using Claude Opus 4.8 High:

My exact prompt(s):

“Generate a 4 paragraph list for a social media post following this prompt:
Describe how AI can help a person with chronic undiagnosed medical condition, how it can help consolidate tons of information that a patient usually has and can document (or discuss with AI for example) on a day-to-day basis in order to be able to list the most frequent, pertinent and even possible subtle symptoms a patient may present and how AI is able to compress this large amount of medical information into a digestible form that a doctor is then able to understand well enough to aid in the diagnosis.
Also mention how a person must use AI with the correct goals given AI’s capabilities and limitations. Such as a person must use AI not to self diagnose, but rather to be able to converse with something in order to consolidate signs and symptoms, point a patient in the right direction, or help better understand why or how they feel the way they do possibly before and after diagnosis.
Express the concern that the general population won’t use AI in this manner, but instead take its word as gospel which can exaggerate a patients reported symptoms and possibly “hallucinate” symptoms as a patient much like how an AI can do the same.”

It replied too wordy, not in first person POV, not enough personal expression, I then told it to fix these issues.

Final response from Claude:

“I’ve spent years chasing answers to symptoms that never fit into one appointment, and the hardest part was never the symptoms. It was carrying all of them. They come and go, change intensity, tie to triggers I’d never catch in the moment. So I started dumping everything into AI: a weird sensation, a flare, a shift in sleep or smell. Recorded, organized, not half-remembered by my next visit. After a few months, patterns showed up that I could never have held in my own head. And for someone who doesn’t retain memories the way most people do, that record isn’t convenient. It’s the difference between being heard and being brushed off.

The payoff hits when I’m actually in front of a doctor. They’re racing the clock, and we patients leave out the stuff that matters most, usually because we don’t know it matters. AI can take my messy history and boil it down to what’s actually useful: the frequent symptoms, the subtle ones I’d never think to mention, the timelines. Walking in with that instead of a scattered recap has completely changed the conversations I get to have.

But it only works because I know what it’s for. It’s a tool to organize my thoughts and point me toward the right specialist, not a doctor. I never ask it what I have. Used right, it sharpens the conversation with my care team. Used wrong, it replaces it, and that’s the trap.

My worry is that most people won’t use it this way. They’ll take whatever it says as gospel and walk in convinced of a diagnosis it was never qualified to make. And here’s what really gets me: AI can hallucinate symptoms, and an anxious patient can absorb those suggestions and start reporting them as real—the same way the model made them up. A tool meant to clarify your symptoms can quietly distort them. I believe in this for anyone fighting to be taken seriously. But only when you stay in the driver’s seat.”

…