1,706 karma · joined January 4, 2011
> how could I ever present a verifiable citation for it?
There would likely be at least one (1) report of such a wild claim due to how wild it is. We wouldn't need anecdotes!
And without sharing the prompt or the actual response. Like sure, it's possible Claude said something so obviously wrong. Depending on your experience, you might even think it to be probable.
But then why wouldn't OP preempt any doubt and simply share the part that matters? What are we doing.
Is that what you're telling us??
OP knows this but finds himself in the strange position of having to defend India slop in order to defend AI slop, totally unnecessarily and unprompted. It's baffling to you and me.
What was the impetus of the derogatory remarks?
Buddy, you don't need to hand it to the top-level comment here. I am giving you permission to disagree with the style while admitting that the comment is bad. Be free.
Nobody is doubting that there are some people who watch films 10–12 hours a day, every day of the week.
The original comment says:
> Like on a college application, they expect you to answer it.
I don't know if that changes your interpretation, but if the other replies are any indication, yours is not the default.
Is this an edge case? It looks like your standard chargeback fraud accompanied by a pile of evidence. What does a common case look like in contrast?
We should expect this to become even more rampant given the ease of clicking a chargeback button and the apparent lack of repercussions.
On the contrary, everyone is engaging timr within the scope of the exact challenge that he himself designed. Repeatedly, he has refused to answer his own question while insisting that he has. It's pretty wild.
We would need a pass from the mods lol.
That is not the question. The topic of discussion had been defined multiple times before you commented!