In my opinion, Claude "gaslighting" is a signal the other way - If Claude thinks they've discovered something, that means the llm-compression of most digitalized human knowledge still finds SmartThing a disturbing piece of tech that user do not want.
So first we have to the examine the gate being kept, and who's the keeper. If it's "being allowed to vote" and the gate is being kept by "men", sure, tear down that wall. In this case however, the gate being kept is not reading the documentation and being mind blown for something that's documented. Not like, hidden away somewhere, but plainly documented. I'm torn though, because xkcd 1053 also applies. Unfortunately, tech is one of those areas where you can only cry wolf so many times before people just totally ignore you.
I mean, that’s just a statement of fact from the grandparent, no? I don’t see it as gatekeeping; are you focusing on some other part of the comment?
I think someone who’s aware of how to do Reverse Engineering being tired of those who’re making mistakes but advertising the output of those mistakes as legitimate discovery is pretty normal. I remember when I was learning FreeBSD that I’d show up in the mailing lists thinking I’d found bugs, but really I hadn’t read the docs well enough, and people were direct with me that I needed to do better if I threw the word “bug” around. It’s just normal peer feedback.
I would respectfully submit that trying to treat Anthropic’s models’ nonsense alarmism like it is legitimate output is closer to gaslighting. At best, the output shows that the majority of people have an alarmed tone.
I look at the original comment and it doesn't say anything about gullibility. It expresses frustration that there's an influx of people interested in the field of Reverse Engineering but aren't digging deeper to where the answers are. I read the comment as being more similar to the complaints of the Eternal September, when an existing culture got permanently swamped by people who wanted to interact with the tools of the culture but didn't realise there was a process to learn first.
For myself, I'm glad there's an influx of people interested in technology and being able to grasp at the tools that can deliver outcomes. I don't love seeing people appearing that want to tell me that deeper understanding is dead, not because it does me any particular daily harm but because I think there's still a lot of value in understanding the details of a topic which summaries tend to gloss over. I've been feeling this for a long time, though, it's not related to LLMs but to a culture of knowledge more fixated on soundbites than on getting at the truth of things.
In this case, I see the original commenter reflecting my own concerns, but that's so often the way: we see things as we are, not as they are, which may be colouring my read.
Reasonable minds can disagree, of course, and I respect that we may just be reading the comment quite differently.
At a dead minimum, I'd expect something like "addressing the concerns the experts are raising" instead of trying to do a character assassination.
I generally read "character assassinations" as suggesting that someone has no real technical arguments available - conversely, the experts here are citing specific facts and evidence.