Discussion about this post

User's avatar
The Bull and The Bot's avatar

Great breakdown! One thing I always mention when people say they’re wary of using AI assistants because of hallucinations: the mindset needs to shift. These aren’t just Q&A robots. They can actually be your critical thinking partners.

The real value isn’t in asking “what’s the answer?” It’s in using these models to stress-test your thinking. They can:

1. Expand your ideas

2. Validate or poke holes in them

3. Surface POVs you may have completely overlooked

Yes, they’re great for answering simple questions but in doing so, they can also hallucinate too. The key is in how you engage with them.

Give o3 a thesis, for example a stock idea and your reasons for liking it. And give it a persona, like a skeptical hedge fund portfolio manager. Ask it for 10 reasons that support your case and 10 that challenge it. You’ll get new angles, risks you hadn’t considered, and potential counterarguments to prepare for. Now, the conversation isn’t about being right or wrong now. It’s about being more rigorous.

Bottom line: don’t use LLMs only as search bars. Start using them like strategic thought partners. Pick its brain so that it shares information that can sharpen your thoughts and help YOU make more informed decisions.

Expand full comment
Federico's avatar

This is incredibly timely and useful. I get asked this all the time—and even some people who are paying for the good models (say, ChatGPT Plus) are not aware that they can switch to more powerful models, so they're missing out. A quick "please share your screen and tell me what you want to do" is often an hour very well spent for greater effectiveness in using AI.

I agree with all your points, but I have found Claude far less useful for writing than the other models. I did not see the leap toward Claude 4 (Opus or Sonnet) that I expected, not in writing and reasoning. In fact, not long ago I asked both Claude 4 and Gemini 2.5 Pro to quantify about three pages of data (quantitative and qualitative). The conclusions were so different that I gave each the answer the other had given. Claude apologized profusely and got it wrong again upon reanalysis. I also find that Gemini is writing better than the rest of the models. If someone wants to pay for a model, right now I would not recommend paying for Claude.

One more thing—what I just mentioned is something that I recommend to people who are willing to pay for at least two models. Make them converse! Give one model the answer the other gave you. This is generally a very fruitful exercise.

Expand full comment
69 more comments...

No posts