Comment by throw310822
14 hours ago
If I asked a question to Claude, it's because I couldn't answer it myself, but also, because I used my skills and domain expertise to explain clearly the problem to Claude.
And if I paste back to you an answer from Claude, it means that I have read and evaluated what Claude wrote back, and I have extracted the part of it that most clearly contains the answer as well as the diagnosis- if I gor anything relevant.
Of course I could instead pretend I came up with the answer myself in 5 minutes thanks to my superior analytical skills, and write down two short lines that point to the solution without any explanation. Would you find it better?
But that’s not what happens - people are posting the question into Claude and pasting back saying “here’s what Claude said”. There’s 0 value add in that - I don’t know if you agree, disagree or have even read it. My experience is that most of the time it’s just verbatim,
> write down to short lines that point to the solution without any explanation. Would you find it better?
Yes. That’s why I asked you and not an LLM.
> hey, I don’t know the answer to your question but I went through Claude and got this response. Let me know if that answers your question otherwise we can dig deeper together
That’s all you have to add to make this into a much more pleasant interaction
I agree. However, since I work in a small team and everyone knows me, I don't need to provide this entire context every time. I usually just prepend "according to Claude ..." and try to provide a one line recap of the main point. Then paste the relevant section of Claude's answer (two to three paragraphs).
Your response misses the words most critical to this interaction: "I don't know"