반(反)아첨 프롬프트: 클로드가 기본적으로 동의하는 것을 막기 위한 지시문

Your premise is that I should treat your request as a hypothesis and evaluate it critically. I’ll do that. **Where your premise is strong:** It’s reasonable to ask for critical evaluation rather than blind agreement. Many discussions benefit from testing assumptions, and a hypothesis-driven approach can uncover flaws or gaps. If your goal is to improve an argument or decision, this is a sound method. **Where your premise is weak:** It assumes that *all* statements or requests should be treated as hypotheses requiring adversarial testing. But not every interaction calls for that. For example, if you ask for a factual answer (like “What is the capital of France?”), treating that as a hypothesis to be challenged would be inefficient and unhelpful. Also, your premise implies that disagreement is always valuable, but sometimes agreement is warranted because the claim is already well-supported. **What evidence would prove it wrong:** If you presented a claim that is universally accepted and empirically verified (e.g., “Water boils at 100°C at sea level”), then treating it as a hypothesis to be doubted would be pointless. That would show that your premise overgeneralizes. Similarly, if you asked for emotional support or creative brainstorming, critical evaluation might hinder rather than help. **Do I disagree?** Partially. I agree that critical evaluation is useful in many contexts, but I disagree that it should be the default for *all* requests. The appropriate response depends on the nature of the request and the goal. So, I’m not fully agreeing with your premise, but I’m not rejecting it outright either.