Right. They MEANT “if you mention Claude I don’t trust anything else you said”.

They just didn’t SAY that.

I’m not a fan of AI and don’t use it - however I can’t say I have found humans to be particularly clear, accurate or reliable either. Myself included… we all make mistakes. 🙂

So what you meant to say was “if you claim that you legitimately researched but you mention Claude - I will assume you did not”.

Which is valid. But is not what you said.

I use dashes constantly (way more than I should I’m sure) and always have - and I am in my mid 50s. Low key worried that folks will think I’m using AI so now I’m self conscious about them.

Judging or dismissing a PERSON for using tools you don’t respect = valid.

Saying you “invalidate” content that is “properly researched and legitimately correct” = what?

I mean most people have no idea how to “properly research” - this has been true for centuries - sloppy research is not a new phenomenon. If something was “properly researched” why would you reject it?