[zozbot234]

You can sometime run a quick second check by taking the AI's claim and asking it for an evaluation within a fresh context. It won't be misled by the surrounding text and its answer will at least be somewhat unbiased (though it might still be quite wrong).

It helps if you phrase the question openly, not obviously fishing for a yes-or-no answer. Or, if you have to ask for a yes-or-no question, make it sound like you're obviously expecting the answer that's actually less likely, so the AI will (1) either be more willing to argue against it, or (2) provide good arguments for it you might not have considered, because it "knows" the answer is unexpected and it wants to flatter your judgment.

[GCUMstlyHarmls]

> It helps if you phrase the question openly, not obviously fishing for a yes-or-no answer. Or, if you have to ask for a yes-or-no question, make it sound like you're obviously expecting the answer that's actually less likely,

I do this all the time and hate that I have to do it, with the additional "do not yes-man me, be critical."

[MadxX79]

Great, now I have two answers and still no clue which one is the right one.

[nxpnsv]

Now get a third opinion, and marvel at all the thinking that you have accomplished

[MadxX79]

In my experience the last answer it gives is usually the right one

[nxpnsv]

Ah, so the trick is to figure out which one will be the last answer. The halting problem....

[paulhebert]

It’s always the last place you look

[signatoremo]

Any difference that asking two humans?

[MadxX79]

Yeah, enormously. People will hedge depending on how sure they are about something. They might also have credentials in whatever you ask them, if you get legal advice from a lawyer, that can be judged to be more reliable than from a lay person.

Relationships with real people are pretty cool actually. If you talk to people that you have a longer relationship with, you might also be able to judge their areas of expertise and how prone to bullshitting they are.