Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 182
- 2
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sorry that this is the second week in a row that I'm complaining about Claude, but I need to get this out of my system.
What is going on with Claude?
I asked:
Claude:
So I asked:
Claude:
Meanwhile, ChatGPT gave me:
It cited Russian Wikipedia and this prison memoir.
Maybe the thing on Wikipedia is itself bullshit. Anyone can edit it. There's a reason teachers don't trust it. I have no idea. But Claude didn't have any idea either! It didn't even check.
"The mechanics are physically impossible." Are they?
Feels entirely a reasonable response - Claude feels confident enough on it's own internal knowledge/reasoning that it feels no need to activate a web search tool, and told you so. This is a desirable property - you don't want it to fire up Google for questions it's pretty confident about.
If you're skeptical of its reasoning - you can always just ask it explicitly to find online reports and examine their veracity.
Claude initially overstated its confidence levels and forced me to ask a follow-up question. It felt to me like it shut down the conversation in its first response. This is bad and actively user-hostile design. It also fundamentally failed to satisfy my curiosity. So, I turned to ChatGPT and got a much more satisfying response. Claude didn't even bother to provide the Russian word for the term. This is how you lose a customer.
By the way, I used Opus 5 on High for this, so it's not like the model itself was just being dumb.
I think I agree with Claude here. It was correct to be sure of this.
Even if you ask it explicitly to find sources, it sticks to the same answer, in complete agreement with chatgpt. It was warranted in its confidence.
Especially if you're in a context where you care about token costs, Claude's behavior here is preferable - avoiding extra tool calls when the model is sure if the response is a positive, and it's easy enough to modify behavior otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link