[greenavocado]

> If you treat the model like an excellent bluffer, it has never been more fun to challenge a model. To me, there is something deeply intellectually satisfying about "proving" it incorrect, and I like being deeply critical of what the model spits back out. I find that refinement process (with the constant sycophancy turned down in the system prompt) creates a really good loop of critical evaluation that would be hard to get in anywhere else. You can treat it just like the Socratic method, but instead of a benevolent teacher, you get a probabilistic bullshit artist. Lots of fun, highly recommend.

Yes, but eventually the intellectual whack-a-mole gets tiresome unless you get really, really good at simultaneously cornering it and not letting it concede to your point.

[Hasz]

new session. It's easy to lead a model into getting the response you want, deliberately or accidently.

The point is not to literally win an argument (it doesn't matter), it is to use the model like a partner to poke holes in your own understanding. Once it's poked a hole, it has served its purpose. Plus, you eventually run out of context or the model trails off into babbble.

[visarga]

That is how I use models too. Sometimes I have them role play the supporters of the idea I am arguing against.