Using Chatbots Effectively ... Part 3 -- Human Limitations ... Draft

Last update: Saturday 8/1/26 6:37pm

Intro

Blah

Blah

Blah

Full text ➡ HERE

Menu for access to installments

1. Basics | 2. Chatbot Flaws | 3. Human Limitations 

Menu for access to sections of this installment

Introduction | 1. Max Fax | 2. Notes | 3. Writing | 4. Images l 5. Snap Judgments

You work for me, check whatever I said BEFORE you make any comments about what I said

Consciousness overcomes conditioning Chomsky

A chatbot cannot overcome its conditioning only humans can

Snap judgments tend towards false equivalence 

Unnecessary clarifications — all chatbots --Distinctions in syntax, not semantics, distinctions without a difference

Prolonged engagement — Gemini 

Snap judgment of limited search secondary sources — all chatbots

Failure to connect the dots -- all chatbots

Yet to recognize that the RLHF post training conditioning, not only raises, guardrails against bad behavior, it creates barriers to good behavior … undermines independent thinking and creativity in inexperienced minds

Introduction

1) Maximum Factors = 4

Cowan

GoTo Appendix-1

BackToTop

2) Notes for summaries and links

GoTo Appendix-2

BackToTop

3) YOU are the writer

background processing

GoTo Appendix-3

BackToTop

4) [Good] image = 1,000 words

Claude can generate diagrams using draw.io or another free open source diagrams tool, but it cannot generate Photo realistic, images or even cartoons. One has to use ChatGPT or Gemini because they have built-in image generators. 

GoTo Appendix-4

5) Snap judgements 

Apple research 

https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/illusion-of-thinking

BackToTop

APPENDICES

Appendix-1

... One ...

Background processing .. connecting… new insights

Cowan max in active memory = 4

Using Claude

• Sonnet is like Google Search. It returns results that contain the key words in your prompt, useful for browsing. But it does not read the sources it returns carefullly
  
  
• Opus is good for research. It reads carefully, you just have to double check

/———/——-/

7

Mark Granovetter’s "The Strength of Weak Ties" (1973) argues that acquaintances (weak ties) are more crucial than close friends (strong ties) for accessing new information, finding job opportunities, and connecting disparate social groups. Weak ties act as bridges between insular social circles, offering unique information, while strong ties often provide redundant information. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Key Aspects of Granovetter's Theory:

• Bridging Social Capital: Weak ties connect different, closely-knit groups (e.g., different departments in a company, or separate social circles) that otherwise do not interact.
• Job Seeking Efficiency: In his studies, Granovetter found that a significant majority (over 83% in one study) of people found new jobs through acquaintances, rather than close friends.
• Novel Information: Because weak ties exist outside one’s immediate, tight-knit circle, they provide access to new ideas and opportunities that strong ties (who share the same social sphere) often lack.
• "The Strength of Weak Ties": This phrase highlights that "weak" refers to the low emotional intensity of the relationship, not its importance. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Weak ties are essential for social mobility, career growth, and the flow of information through networks. [1, 2]

My interpretation is sociometric … Do you know someone who knows someone who works for Xxx? Low to zero emotional connection, but provides info about the target network. 3 degrees of Kevin Bacon

The words you select are linked to other words in your mind, so trigger these other words, “reminds me of…” in your brain’s background processing

/——-/——-

“Sometimes makes errors in deductive logic when the topics are not about coding not about science when they’re brought to topics non-non-physical sciences, political science, history, historical studies, sociology, etc. Claude doesn’t make the connections and has almost a sophomore view, apologizing saying well this is something that you learned from experience that no this is something that’s in the textbooks. Google has been exposed much wide range of systematic knowledge in the social sciences, humanities, etc. is a very narrow wrench, so Claude will assert confidently that some event had nothing no connection with another event because he doesn’t know anything about the history you know it’s nothing about politics, standard political practices. These have been studied, but he hasn’t been trained that yet. I keep saying he hasn’t been trained. A Because it’s been trained with good virus good right with style in wit

Claude use the term confabulate connections are not there. In fact Claude is the one that does that snap judgment fabulous, and then deductive errors on the way down.

Use a face with a terrible choice nominally the smartest chat, but is Claude but he has the weakest training in the non-cyclops focus areas, physics, chemistry, modern biology

____________________________________

Links to related notes on this blog:  

• 
  

Page settings Options Page: EditLoaded more pages.