Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
This account is an LLM-hype peddler, shilling for Anthropic (check comment history). If they say that Claude is not nerfed, then most likely it is, in fact, nerfed.
I wouldn't call correcting misinformation and FUD "peddling hype" or "shilling" but I suppose we are in a post-truth world, where if you push back against the anti-AI emotions and vibes with grounded facts, you must be a shill.

Anyways, please take your discourse of calling people you disagree with "shills" back to Reddit. I'd much rather engage with someone debating the merits of an argument.

If you are an LLM-hype peddler, you really should not be offended at being called out. Also, this is the merit you are ostensibly looking for — since you are a shill, everyone should know this first before taking your words seriously.

You should also check your LLM prompt for HN comments, because the original comment you replied to was not anti-AI, and, in fact, very much pro-AI. The only criticism it had was about model being degraded, so they could not go as hard at AI-assisted development anymore as they used to before. I guess it's a bit difficult for LLMs to spot the difference and make proper conclusion for now.

Also even if taking you seriously — how does writing "no, model performance is not degraded because I say so" serve as correcting misinformation? It only does if you are shilling for Anthropic (which you do), otherwise it's just hot air.

Not offended at all, but just ranting about how someone is a shill instead of responding to the substance of their argument is simply not the kind of discussion we have on HN. Read the guidelines.

> "no, model performance is not degraded because I say so" serve as correcting misinformation?

Because zero evidence has been provided other than feelings. That is not evidence of degradation, and we know they don't serve quants.

loading story #48250492