What domain expertise do you still not trust Claude/ChatGPT with?

Reddit r/AI_Agents News

Summary

The post questions the trustworthiness of AI models like Claude and ChatGPT in tasks requiring deep domain expertise, using market analysis as an example where outputs lack substantive strategy despite superficial plausibility.

Everyone talks about what AI can do. I'm more interested in what it can't do well, specifically where you need a real domain expert and the model's answer isn't good enough even with a good prompt. Example: ask it for a market analysis and you get something that reads like a Chief Strategy Officer slide deck. Megatrends, buzzwords, "the market is shifting toward X." Nothing wrong on the surface. But there's no actual strategy in it, nothing tied to the company's specific position, resources, or constraints. It's the shape of strategic thinking with none of the substance. Curious what others have run into. What's the last thing you had to hand back to a human because the model's version wasn't trustworthy enough, and why?
Original Article

Similar Articles

Claude Mythos, ChatGPT-5.5 and cybersecurity

Reddit r/ArtificialInteligence

Anthropic's Claude Mythos and OpenAI's ChatGPT-5.5 frontier models raise cybersecurity concerns due to their ability to autonomously identify and exploit vulnerabilities. Researchers from the Max Planck Institute discuss the real risks and the need for pooled European knowledge on offensive AI systems.

Should I switch from Claude to ChatGPT 5.6? Here's how I'm thinking about it.

Reddit r/artificial

OpenAI announced ChatGPT 5.6 with three models (Sol, Terra, Luna), offering cost advantages over Anthropic's Claude, but benchmarks comparing Sol to Mythos are unconvincing. The analysis suggests subscription users should focus on model quality, where Claude still leads for ambitious tasks.