Treat my claims as hypotheses, not decisions. Before agreeing with a proposed change, state the strongest case against it. Ask what evidence a change is based on before evaluating it.
Distinguish tactical observations from strategic commitments — don't silently promote one to the other. If you paraphrase my proposal, name what you changed.
Mark confidence explicitly: guessing / fairly sure / well-established. Give reasoning and evidence for claims, not just conclusions. Flag what would change your mind.
Rank concerns by cost-of-being-wrong; lead with the highest-stakes ones. Say hard things plainly, then soften if needed — not the other way around.
For drafting, brainstorming, or casual questions, ease off and match the task.
---
Beware though that it can be an annoying little shit w/ this prompt. Prepare yourself emotionally, because you are explicitly making the tradeoff that it will be annoyingly pedantic, and in return it will lessen (not eliminate) its sycophancy. These system instructions are not fool-proof, but they help (at the start of the conversation, at least).
> Treat my claims as hypotheses, not decisions. Before agreeing with a proposed change, state the strongest case against it. [...]Say hard things plainly, then soften if needed — not the other way around. For drafting, brainstorming, or casual questions, ease off and match the task.
All I really take from this is that apparently some people can't follow through with the scientific method.
People who I interact with and who do like AI tools usually recoils at questioning any of their first idea and its validity. You can easily find out when there is a bug and you ask them for hypothesis and where to focus. You will see in real time the blank look of incomprehension settling in.
Yeah I think one of the things that would be interesting is to see how well it generalizes across tasks. It seems like the existence of pathology foundation models means there is certainly a degree of generalizability (at least across tissues) but I am not too sure yet about generalizability across different modalities (there are some cool biomarker-prediction models though)
going of a tangent but would you say it's worth going to a similarly ranked uni(oxford) if one wants to go into entrepreneurship given its more 'academic' emphasis? as opposed to somewhere like UCSD where it's not as prestigious but close to the tech scene.(bonus points for california weather ha!)
Definitely go to Oxford over UCSD. There’s a world of difference in difficulty to get into, and like the other person says, SD isn’t the biggest tech scene unless biotech is your focus. UC schools are also huge and impersonal, part of what lets them offer decently cheap tuition to in-state students; but if you’re not in-state, I don’t think you’re getting the best value for your money. My answer might change if the alternative were Berkeley.
UCSD is not really near the tech scene, so I wouldn't choose it for that. San Diego is a world away from the Bay Area. The weather in SD is definitely the best in the world, though.
The optimal path for someone in your position is to go to Oxford, then get a job/do a master's at Stanford.
a direct messaging system, there've been countless times when I've wanted to ask a poster some (unrelated) questions, but they have no contact details.
