You just have to double check the results whenever you tell Claude to extract lists and data.
99.9% of it will be correct, but sometimes 1 or 2 records are off. This kind of error is especially hard to notice because you're so impressed that Claude managed to do the extract task at all -- plus the results look wholly plausible upon eyeballing -- that you wouldn't expect anything to be wrong at all.
But LLMs can get things ever slightly wrong when it comes to long lists/tables. I've been bitten by this before.
Trust but verify.
(edit: if the answer is "machine verifiable", one approach to ask an LLM to write a Python validator which it can execute internally. ChatGPT can execute code. I believe Sonnet 3.5 can too, but I haven't tried.)
99.9% of it will be correct, but sometimes 1 or 2 records are off. This kind of error is especially hard to notice because you're so impressed that Claude managed to do the extract task at all -- plus the results look wholly plausible upon eyeballing -- that you wouldn't expect anything to be wrong at all.
But LLMs can get things ever slightly wrong when it comes to long lists/tables. I've been bitten by this before.
Trust but verify.
(edit: if the answer is "machine verifiable", one approach to ask an LLM to write a Python validator which it can execute internally. ChatGPT can execute code. I believe Sonnet 3.5 can too, but I haven't tried.)