alt Hacker NewsThe colleague implicitly agreed that comparing the output was a valid way to settle the matter as they took part in the test, so they weren't using "better" in the way you propose.
The colleague implicitly agreed that comparing the output was a valid way to settle the matter as they took part in the test, so they weren't using "better" in the way you propose.
I wasn’t really discussing the colleague, but either way, from:
> A colleague was convinced Claude is better so we played a game. We used the claude code and codex harness and I implemented some prs they needed with gpt5.5 and opus4.7 and asked them to identify which came from which only from the code.
I don’t think it’s obvious that they specifically agreed that losing the game meant that. They might just have thought “sure, it might be fun”, if they even gave it that much thought.
“So we played a game” is rather vague and I feel it’s a bit of a leap to read it as: “as an explicit outcome of their claim that Claude is better, we made a formal bet as to whether they could tell the difference in the output, the failure of which would mean a full retractation of their statement”.