404
Don't paste the AI.
(dontpastetheai.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
404 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
87393 readers
3737 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Judging or dismissing a PERSON for using tools you don’t respect = valid.
Saying you “invalidate” content that is “properly researched and legitimately correct” = what?
I mean most people have no idea how to “properly research” - this has been true for centuries - sloppy research is not a new phenomenon. If something was “properly researched” why would you reject it?
As the one says above it is "Appeal to Authority" by adding Claude, or ChatrGPT for the more base level folks, from what I have seen.
Somehow they assume that putting that in will somehow make their words more valid, but hearing it makes me question everything, and dismiss potential valid points made alongside it.
Because we don't see all that research, we just see a comment where you said you asked the hallucination machine, so now, if I want to use anything you said, I have to go duplicate all that research before I can trust it.
That's true regardless of the sources someone used.
Yeah, but the only source explicitly provided in this hypothetical is the hallucination machine.
Well I like to at least allude to my source if it's not common knowledge
So what you meant to say was “if you claim that you legitimately researched but you mention Claude - I will assume you did not”.
Which is valid. But is not what you said.
More accurately, if you claim you used Claude, I will assume absolutely anything produced with it has a high chance of being rife with errors. If you provided citations for every last detail and then said Claude put it together, I wouldn't trust it until I've personally verified the sources because not only will it hallucinate details, it'll hallucinate sources. Anything produced with it is inherently untrustworthy.
To add on to what you said, i would trust the same thing more if it was just a human saying it was correct and implicitly staking their reputation on it, vs if the same person said, "i checked with Claude and it agreed."
To me, this means the person turned off their brain and is invoking Claude's reputation, which also means i shouldn't trust that person's judgment either.
Because upvotes