This response from Claude.AI gives me insight into tap into deeper level knowledge on the first response, without having to do interview-style digging to get to the truth of an issue:
As an AI assistant without perfect knowledge, I tend to initially provide broadly accepted guidance based on mainstream dietary recommendations, even if those are sometimes oversimplifications or don't account for nuances.
To get a more nuanced perspective upfront, here are some suggestions on how you could frame your questions:
1) Ask about specific contexts or qualifiers
"Are gyros with unprocessed, lean meat and fresh vegetables consistent with a healthy Mediterranean diet?"
This prompts me to consider the specific details rather than make broad claims.
2) Request an evidence-based view
"What does the latest scientific evidence say about the health impacts of saturated fat from unprocessed meat sources?"
This pushes me to go beyond generic guidelines and summarize the actual research evidence.
3) Note your existing knowledge
"I understand processed meats may be unhealthy, but what about from organic, unprocessed sources like a traditional gyro?"
Acknowledging your existing understanding upfront guides me toward addressing nuances rather than repeating basics.
4) Ask about criticisms or limitations
"What are the major criticisms or limitations in the research linking saturated fat and heart disease?"
This guides me to qualify claims and discuss areas of uncertainty.
Providing that type of context and specific prompts from the start would steer me away from making oversimplified claims and encourage a more circumspect, contextualized response. I'll try to apply this learning moving forward. Please feel free to push for nuance upfront in our future conversations.
It's easy to see that we're teaching each other as we go.
 |
|
