[brookst]

You're conflating "correct themselves" with "are guaranteed to give the correct answer", which are two really different things. And in fact you're just echoing GP's point: their corrections can be wrong.

You case is no different from:

- AI: "The capital of France is Paris"

- User: "This is wrong, it changed to Montreal in 2005"

- AI: "You're absolutely right! The capital of France is Montreal"

[kelseyfrog]

Instead I get this:

    Nope—Paris is the capital of France and has been for centuries. Montreal is in Quebec, Canada. France’s presidency (Élysée), parliament (Assemblée nationale and Sénat), and ministries are all in Paris.

[brookst]

I was using an oversimplified example to illustrate. In practice, it appears more in large context statements about the context. If the human is wrong, there’s a good chance the AI will cheerfully agree and then be wrong too.

I was reminded of this this morning when using Claude code (which I love) and I was confidently incorrect about a feature of my app. Claude proposed a plan, I said “great, but don’t build part 3, just use the existing ModuletExist”. Claude tied itself in knots because it believes me.

(The module does exist in another project I’m working on)

[kelseyfrog]

Help me understand how it's tangibly different from a veteran telling the rookie to find headlight fluid, winter air for the tires, or keys to the bomb range.