zlacker

>>amrrs+(OP)
Interestingly I just hit an example of this. Highly specific but I was asking about pickleball strategy and grok and Claude both couldn’t seem to understand you can’t aim at the opponent’s feet when you’re hitting up.

Just kept regurgitating internet advice and I couldn’t get it to understand the reasoning on why it was wrong.

>>bilsbi+1q3
Hey --- if the internet says it, it can't be wrong.

>>jqpabc+xq3
In this case it found generic advice and was confusing itself.

>>bilsbi+6s3
That's one explanation.

Another could be that it simply has no real *understanding* of anything. It simply did a statistical comparison of the question to the available advice and picked the best match --- kinda what a search engine might do.

Expecting *understanding* from a synthetic, statistical process will often end in disappointment.