[Deegy]

I've also noticed that with cGPT.

That said I often run into a sort of opposite issue with Claude. It's very good at making me feel like a genius. Sometimes I'll suggest trying a specific strategy or trying to define a concept on my own, and Claude enthusiastically agrees and takes us down a 2-3 hour rabbit hole that ends up being quite a waste of time for me to back track out of.

I'll then run a post-mortem through chatGPT and very often it points out the issue in my thinking very quickly.

That said I keep coming back to sonnet-3.5 for reasons I can't perfectly articulate. Perhaps because I like how it fluffs my ego lol. ChatGPT on the other hand feels a bit more brash. I do wonder if I should be using o1 as my daily driver.

I also don't have enough experience with o1 to determine if it would also take me down dead ends as well.

[bazmattaz]

Really interesting point you make about Claude. I’ve experienced the same. What is interesting is that sometimes I’ll question it and say “would it not be better to do it this way” and all of a sudden Claude u-turns and says “yes great idea that’s actually a much better approach” which leaves me thinking; are you just stroking my ego, if it’s a better approach then why didn’t you suggest it?

However I have suggested worse approaches on purpose and sometime Claude does pick them up as less than optimal

[mordae]

It's a little sycophant.

But the difference is that it actually asks questions. And also that it actually rolls with what you ask it to do. Other models are stubborn and loopy.

[airstrike]

I agree with this but o1 will also confidently take you into rabbit holes. You'll just feel worse about it lol and when you ask Claude for a post mortem, it too will find the answer you missed quickly

The truth is these models are very stochastic you have to try new chats whenever you even moderately suspect you're going awry