"Reasoning from a sibling product generates confident, plausible, wrong answers. These each burned real time before collapsing."
May I ask what exactly did you intend to mean when you wrote this sentence? it seems to me it's a bit all over the place, not sure what the purpose was in writing that one. It and many others here seem to be indeed burning some of my real time before collapsing into that question of: what's the precise intent.
LLMs are great at reverse engineering, but they're no replacement for the cozy blogpost taking you through the authors process.
This webpage gave me a headache with all the formatting and claudisms.
> Which meant every conclusion carried an asterisk, and the asterisks were load-bearing.
Good lord, why would you make your website so intentionally hard to read?
Reverse engineering my cheap Chinese microscope told me it rather identifies as a dashcam.
If I may quote you:
"Reasoning from a sibling product generates confident, plausible, wrong answers. These each burned real time before collapsing."
May I ask what exactly did you intend to mean when you wrote this sentence? it seems to me it's a bit all over the place, not sure what the purpose was in writing that one. It and many others here seem to be indeed burning some of my real time before collapsing into that question of: what's the precise intent.
I miss when people would proofread things before they published.