Comment by kragen
5 days ago
That would be a justifiable inference in that case. But you didn't get to this point on your own. You haven't learned the knowledge you would have learned getting to this point on your own. Claude didn't either; generally speaking, it doesn't learn. So it may be misleading to reason by analogy to the counterfactual where you had gotten to this point on your own. Claude may or may not be able to finish the job. You won't know until you try.
> Claude may or may not be able to finish the job. You won't know until you try.
Yes, it’s weak evidence. Not proof. That is why I was quite explicit about what it has and hasn’t accomplished.
In my time with it, Claude seems fine at finishing up projects. And I’ve done enough reverse engineering to have a reasonably firm understanding of the outstanding work. I predict that Claude will have no problem finishing this up with some more guidance and tokens. You can of course have your own opinion, but I think it’s a bit much to claim I’m suffering from ai psychosis for having this expectation of its capabilities.
Not knowing you, I would not claim that you are suffering from AI psychosis. You seem to imply that I have made such a claim, but I have not.