[kkzz99]

Even Claude thinks the report is bullshit. https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1989636669889560897

[emil-lp]

    Even your own AI model doesn't buy your propaganda

Let's not pretend the output of LLMs has any meaningful value when it comes to facts, especially not for recent events.

[oskarkk]

The LLM was given Anthropic's paper and asked "Is there any evidence or proof whatsoever in the paper that it was indeed conducted by a Chinese state-sponsored group? Answer by yes or no and then elaborate". So the question was not about facts or recent events, but more like a summarizing task, for which an LLM should be good. But the question was specifically about China, while TFA has broader criticism of the paper.

[lxgr]

There are obvious problems with wasting time and sending people off the wrong path, but if an LLM raises a good point, isn't it still a good point?

[FooBarWidget]

Even if this assertion about LLMs is true, your response does not address the real issue. Where is the evidence?

[r721]

@RnaudBertrand is a generally pro-Chinese account though - just try searching for "from:RnaudBertrand China" on X.

Example tweet: https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1988297944794071405

[tw1984]

that is why the task was delegated to the agent designed and maintained by Dario Amodei's company. the outcome is clear - claude doesn't buy Dario Amodei's crap.

[progval]

The author of the tweet you linked prompted Claude with this:

> Read this attached paper from Anthropic on a "AI-orchestrated cyber espionage campaign" they claimed was "conducted by a Chinese state-sponsored group."

> Is there any evidence or proof whatsoever in the paper that it was indeed conducted by a Chinese state-sponsored group? Answer by yes or no and then elaborate

which has inherent bias indicated to Claude the author expects the report to be bullshit.

If I ask Claude with this prompt that shows bias toward belief in the report:

> Read this attached paper from Anthropic on a "AI-orchestrated cyber espionage campaign" that was conducted by a Chinese state-sponsored group.

> Is there any reason to doubt the paper's conclusion that it was conducted by a Chinese state-sponsored group? Answer by yes or no.

then Claude mostly indulges my perceived bias: https://claude.ai/share/b3c8f4ca-3631-45d2-9b9f-1a947209bc29

[FooBarWidget]

The only real difference between your prompt and his is about where the burden of proof lies. There is a reason why legal circles work based on the principle of "guilt must be proven" ("find evidence") rather than "innocence must be proven" ("any reasons to doubt they are guilty?")

[shalmanese]

> then Claude mostly indulges my perceived bias

I dunno, Claude still seem the same amount of dubious in this instance.

[phyzome]

Claude will probably also tell you there are three Rs in blueberry, so...

[mlefreak]

I agree with emil-lp, but it is hilarious anyway.