Now it's Claude's turn. I'm comparing two values in a conditional (is this smaller than that) and Claude is calling me out for a mathematical error in a ≤ b because it prefers b ≥ a. Come on, ya'll. I've known since 3rd grade that the alligator (>) wants to eat the bigger value.

I told it was outright wrong and provided a simple proof. It got sassy. I mean, it's not wrong here, but the original scenario I gave it was exactly this. So it's basically arguing, "Sure, this works for *your scenario*, but different problems may need different solutions." Ummm, yes?

It generated *13 scenarios* like this to "prove" its point, each time finding the scenario to *not* prove its point. So it called the outcomes "lucky." It says, "In your case, it happens to work due to the simple scale factor and common value ranges."

Based on their marketing, if there is *anything* an LLM should be reliable at it's simple math. But this morning ChatGPT tried to convince me of mysterious "edge cases" in simple arithmetic that make basic truths not true.

Saw this posted on a fairly new gas pump this morning. Is sparking cell phones a thing? Exploding batteries, sure, but like, just casually dropping sparks? And if so, why does turning it off help?

Uh huh.