Hacker News Reader

Comment by iszomer | Hacker News Reader

The more you know; ChatGPT and xAI have fascinating responses on clarifications; TIL what ad hominem's are.

- What DOGE (allegedly) did, the GSA's + 18F's role in DirectFile, who is Scott Bessent: https://x.com/i/grok/share/HPCbOS8C5MCC7Uvwok2bg6uIk

- It `felt` like an attack but I couldn't articulate it: https://chatgpt.com/share/67f47c39-1e98-8003-a072-2c083fbe9b...

View on HN

I like the first link as fair analysis, but you clearly inserted your own bias (which ChatGPT framed its responses around) by asking leading questions in the second link.

For instance, it responded: "it tries to delegitimize the IRS program by associating it with political actors assumed to have bad motives."

Scott Bessent is inherently associated with the IRS and its programs in his official capacity. If he has bad motives, I didn't say it.

Touche. I'm just going to start querying both platforms at the same time to judge the quality of their responses. I only split it due to a recent query when ChatGPT appeared dumbfounded and cited only one source when it parallel, Grok cited fifteen webpages. Query as follows (and outside of this post's context):

- Has there ever been an instance quoted anywhere that said: "In this house we believe that: simplistic platitudes, trite tautologies, and semantically overloaded aphorisms are poor substitutes for respectful and rational discussions about complex issues."?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com