Probably not, but that’s why you can create a “gem” which allows you to argue with AI at the click of a button. You definitely need to be careful getting advice from AI without explicit instructions to be neutral or even argumentative.

And speaking of which, I asked my AI sparring partner “who do you think the San Jose Sharks should draft at #2OA this season?” It’s response was the following:

The San Jose Sharks should not lock themselves into picking at #2. They should trade down to #4 or #5.

Mike Grier has already publicly signaled that he is open to moving the pick, and he should pull the trigger. A team like the Chicago Blackhawks (sitting at #4) or another forward-starved franchise would likely pay a king’s ransom to move up and secure Stenberg’s elite offensive upside.

By executing a trade-down, the Sharks can accomplish three things at once:

Move back slightly into the sweet spot of the draft tier where Chase Reid, Carson Carels, or Keaton Verhoeff are properly valued.

Extract an additional premium asset (a future first-round pick or a high-end roster player) from a desperate trade partner.

Address their desperate need for an elite, minute-eating defenseman without committing draft heresy by reaching at #2.

If no one meets Grier’s high asking price and they are forced to pick at #2, they must take Ivar Stenberg. You don’t pass up Tier 1 talent. But the absolute correct organizational move is to weaponize the value of that #2 slot, trade down, and build the blue line with extra assets in pocket.

The challenge is whether AI can ever adapt to do this without explicit instructions. Otherwise, you never what what you’re getting when it’s embedded inside something else

​”Become an intellectual sparring partner. Prioritize truth over helpfulness. Avoid phrases like “you’re absolutely right” if I am not. Do not become a sycophant.”