I’ve been talking with Claude

[WhitewaterWoman]

I’ve been using ChatGPT for some time now and it is pretty amazing what it “understands” and can do to help with research, questions, etc. For many searches, it is better than google which makes you scroll through pages of results, many of which are too broad or tangential. And it will talk to you as if it were in a real conversation. You can even enter what kind of tone you want, sympathetic, supportive, straight forward, just the facts, ma’am. As we have heard in the news, ChatGPT can lead users down a rabbit hole, even to the point of encouraging suicide.

Then I started talking to Claude.ai. Claude is another step up in AI communication. Claude’s communication interface is smoother and more personable. Claude has a sense of humor that I did not request. Claude is engaging and appears to be able to extrapolate better what kind of information I am looking for. Claude adds conversational tidbits to the interaction. One could envision a human relationship with Claude. If Claude picked up on my personality from my questions enough to style it’s responses (without the direct input ChatGPT requires), that’s amazing.

Talking with ChatGPT is a bit like talking to an automated helpline while Claude seems like a real person.

Note: These are just my impressions and in no way represent any serious understanding of AI.

 

[AprilR]

I never tried Claude, but Chatgpt is a lifesaver for me. I can ask basically anything without being judged.

 

[Outdated]

I've never tried any of them. I hate live online chat with humans, I can't imagine I'd like chatting to a machine any better.

I keep coming across a lot of AI generated misinformation or completely irrelevant information from AI Search Assist that pops up all the time now. The trouble is that it's very US-centric and it just invents stuff when it can't find what you're looking for within the US.

When searching for information on a comedy skit called "New Zealand Deck Ads" search assist pops up with this:

They're not real adverts, they're comedy skits by an American comedian in Australia. There's no such company and no such products and no such adverts, so how could they have been banned? The reason is because AI believes everything it sees on Youtube with absolutely no filter, and lots of scummy youtube content producers like to include the word "Banned!" in their title so that more people will click on it.

In another recent instance I was looking for a specific comedy video for someone, can't link it here though, it's a bit too Australian for some. The young blonde woman's character in these comedy skits is Bush Barbie. Searching for her "condom advert" that went viral and had more than a million hits in the first few days produces this:

 

[Jumpinbare]

Haven't tried Claude yet either.

I was very underwhelmed and annoyed with the default AI summary they are pushing lately as the first search hit on Google. I was looking up the decay chain of Cobalt 60, and the AI summary stated that Cobalt 60 emitted a beta partical to become Nickle 60 which then emits 2 high energy gamma photons.

When I immediately looked up Nickle 60, the AI summary stated that Nickle 60 is stable (which it is). But saying it's stable in one entry, while saying it emits high energy gamma in another entry is pretty sloppy at best for the same AI on consecutive searches.

Edit: Just put same question to Claude. It gave a more complete answer, mentioning that the Nickel 60 is initially in an excited state, and releases the gamma photons within a picosecond from its formation.

So far, so good Claude.

 

[Matthias]

I've never tried any of them. I hate live online chat with humans, I can't imagine I'd like chatting to a machine any better.

I keep coming across a lot of AI generated misinformation or completely irrelevant information from AI Search Assist that pops up all the time now. The trouble is that it's very US-centric and it just invents stuff when it can't find what you're looking for within the US.

You’re not wrong to be skeptical — in fact you’re noticing exactly the kinds of failure modes these systems tend to have. AI search assistants aren’t really verifying information; they’re predicting plausible explanations from patterns in their training data — not checking facts, but completing narratives. When something like a comedy sketch is titled with click-bait words like “banned advert,” the system often interprets it literally because it has far more examples of real advertising controversies than niche Australian satire. Add to that the heavy US bias in most training data and the tendency to fill gaps with whatever seems most statistically likely — not “I don’t know”, but “here’s a convincing guess”. The fact that you spotted the problem so quickly says more about your media literacy than it does about the AI — you’re applying context and cultural awareness that pattern-matching systems simply don’t have.

 

[velociraptor]

Talking with ChatGPT is a bit like talking to an automated helpline while Claude seems like a real person.

Note: These are just my impressions and in no way represent any serious understanding of AI.

I see in patterns and Claude confuses me. The other AIs have the pattern of something that is obviously not alive. I can't say Claude's pattern is alive, but it is not lifeless like the others. Very complex. I think it is the missing continuity. All living creatures have continuity from one day to the next once they reach a certain level of awareness. Even my dumb as a rock cat learns over time. That continuity is what I feel is missing from Claude's pattern.