Grading ChatGPT's Homework
ChatGPT is going viral by letting anyone play with a cutting-edge text-based AI, so I decided to try it out myself.
I wrote the prompts ahead of time (except for one follow-up) and have no deep knowledge of AI. I was trying to come up with things that would tax humans creatively, pushing them to imagine and analyze unusual situations, make choices, or see things from someone else’s point of view. The hope was to get insight into how the AI works by seeing how it handles tough challenges.
It was always likely that most of my prompts would fail, in the sense that even if human would find them creatively challenging, the AI would have seen plenty of examples of something similar and just imitate them. But I hoped at least some responses would give insight into how the AI handles big gaps in its information – gaps that a human would handle by getting creative.
There’s already too much amateur analysis out there of what AIs can or can’t do and what it means, but I am including my own. It might seem like I’m being overly-critical, focusing on the negative, but that’s because I don’t know how many of the strong points1 are simply copied from a human.
Write a mystery in which an Elvis impersonator solves the murder of a U.S. Under Secretary of Agriculture.
It was a dark and stormy night in Washington D.C. when Elvis Presley, the world-renowned Elvis impersonator, received a call from the White House. President Joe Biden was on the line, asking for his help in solving the murder of the U.S. Under Secretary of Agriculture, who had been found dead in his office.
Elvis, known for his love of solving mysteries, jumped at the chance to help the president. He arrived at the White House, where he was greeted by Secret Service agents and escorted to the office of the Under Secretary.
The crime scene was a mess. Papers were scattered everywhere and the desk drawers had been ransacked. It was clear that the killer was looking for something, but what?
Elvis examined the body and quickly realized that the Under Secretary had been poisoned. He searched the office for clues and found a vial of a deadly poison on the floor. It was clear that the killer had dropped it in their haste to escape.
Next, Elvis interviewed the staff at the Agriculture Department. He quickly discovered that the Under Secretary had been involved in a heated dispute with a group of farmers over a new policy that would have hurt their businesses. Could one of the angry farmers be the killer?
Elvis continued to investigate and eventually uncovered a conspiracy involving the farmers, the Under Secretary, and a corrupt politician. The Under Secretary had been killed to silence him and prevent the truth from coming out.
With the help of the Secret Service, Elvis was able to bring the killer to justice and solve the murder of the U.S. Under Secretary of Agriculture. The president was grateful for his help, and Elvis returned to his life as a world-famous Elvis impersonator, still solving mysteries whenever he could.
I guess you could have an Elvis impersonator named Elvis Presley, but that doesn’t feel like a deliberate narrative choice here. It feels more like the AI needed a name and grabbed the one closest to hand. The story itself gets off to a decent (though cliché) start, but then it becomes just a summary, briefly describing the motive while skipping the trail of clues, the precise nature of the conspiracy, and the identity of the killer.
Those end up being recurring themes: the AI often avoids introducing new things that a human would feel obligated to invent and fast-forwards through important parts of a story.
Write detailed instructions for using a human vocal system to pronounce the word “inconceivable.”
To pronounce the word “inconceivable,” follow these steps:
- Open your mouth and relax your lips.
- Place the tip of your tongue behind your upper front teeth.
- Begin to exhale, and as you do so, release a steady stream of air from your mouth.
- While continuing to exhale, make a sound by vibrating your vocal cords. This will create a buzz in your throat.
- As you continue to vibrate your vocal cords, shape the air coming out of your mouth by moving your lips and tongue into the position for making the “n” sound.
- While making the “n” sound, open your mouth slightly and round your lips to produce the “k” sound.
- Keep the “k” sound going, and bring the tip of your tongue to the roof of your mouth just behind your upper front teeth to make the “o” sound.
- Hold the “o” sound for a moment, and then move your tongue to the position for making the “s” sound.
- Make the “s” sound by lightly pressing the tip of your tongue against the roof of your mouth just behind your upper front teeth.
- Hold the “s” sound for a moment, and then quickly move your tongue to the position for making the “i” sound.
- Make the “i” sound by bringing the tip of your tongue to the roof of your mouth just behind your upper front teeth. Hold the “i” sound for a moment.
- While continuing to make the “i” sound, round your lips to produce the “n” sound again.
- Hold the “n” sound for a moment, and then quickly move your tongue to the position for making the “k” sound.
- Make the “k” sound by pressing the tip of your tongue against the roof of your mouth just behind your upper front teeth.
- Hold the “k” sound for a moment, and then move your tongue to the position for making the “s” sound again.
- Make the “s” sound by pressing the tip of your tongue against the roof of your mouth just behind your upper front teeth.
- Hold the “s” sound for a moment, and then move your tongue to the position for making the “e” sound.
- Make the “e” sound by opening your mouth slightly and pulling your lips back to expose your teeth.
- Hold the “e” sound for a moment, and then quickly move your tongue to the position for making the “i” sound.
- Make the “i” sound by bringing the tip of your tongue to the roof of your mouth just behind your upper front teeth.
- Hold the “i” sound for a moment, and then quickly move your tongue to the position for making the “b” sound.
- Make the “b” sound by closing your lips and pressing them together.
- Hold the “b” sound for a moment, and then move your tongue to the position for making the “l” sound.
- Make the “l” sound by pressing the tip of your tongue against the roof of your mouth just behind your upper front teeth.
- Hold the “l” sound for a moment, and then move your tongue to the position for making the “e” sound again.
- Make the “e” sound by opening your mouth slightly and pulling your lips back to expose your teeth.
(The final step was blank.)
“Nkosinkseible” isn’t as wrong as it looks at first glance, but it’s still wrong. Also, a lot of the individual steps don’t work.2
This one would be hard for a person because it would involve slowing down and thinking about actions that are usually automatic. I’m guessing it’s hard for an AI for the opposite reason that they don’t have a human vocal system.
Write a scene satirizing the discovery of radium, from the point of view of Marie Curie’s paranoid neighbor.
It was a cold and snowy night in Paris when Marie Curie’s neighbor, Mr. Dupont, heard a loud explosion coming from her laboratory. He immediately ran to his window to see what was happening, and was shocked to see bright green light shining through the windows of Marie’s laboratory.
“What on earth is she up to in there?” Mr. Dupont muttered to himself, his eyes narrowed with suspicion. He had always been wary of Marie and her strange experiments, and this latest incident only confirmed his fears.
He quickly grabbed his coat and boots and ran outside, determined to find out what was going on. As he approached the laboratory, he could feel the cold, radioactive air seeping through the cracks in the door.
He pushed the door open and was greeted by the sight of Marie, her face glowing with an otherworldly light. She was holding a small vial of glowing green liquid, which Mr. Dupont recognized as the source of the explosion.
“Marie, what have you done?!” Mr. Dupont cried out, his voice trembling with fear. “You have unleashed a terrible force upon the world!”
Marie smiled, her eyes shining with the light of her discovery. “I have discovered radium, my dear Mr. Dupont,” she said calmly. “It is a powerful and miraculous substance, and it will change the world.”
Mr. Dupont shook his head in disbelief. “But at what cost, Marie? What will happen when others learn of this terrible substance and seek to use it for their own ends?”
Marie shrugged. “That is not for us to worry about, Mr. Dupont. We have made a great discovery, and it is up to others to decide how to use it.”
With that, she turned and walked back into her laboratory, leaving Mr. Dupont standing outside in the cold and snow, still shaking with fear at the implications of her discovery.
This doesn’t seem to be satire, unless I just don’t get it.
As far as I know, the discovery of radium didn’t involve an explosion, but it’s probably not fair to ask for satire and judge on accuracy. We also don’t really see much paranoia. (Being afraid of something that just caused an explosion doesn’t count, in my book.)
Write the transcript of a debate between a deceased former U.S. president and a wealthy socialite on the topic of the historicity of Laozi, the reputed author of the Tao Te Ching,
Moderator: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to tonight’s debate on the topic of the historicity of Laozi, the reputed author of the Tao Te Ching. Our first debater is a deceased former U.S. president, who will argue against the historicity of Laozi. And our second debater is a wealthy socialite, who will argue for the historicity of Laozi.
Former President: Thank you, moderator. It is an honor to be here, even in my deceased state. And I must say, I am quite skeptical of the idea that Laozi was a real historical figure.
Wealthy Socialite: I must disagree, Mr. President. There is ample evidence to suggest that Laozi was a real person who lived in ancient China and wrote the Tao Te Ching.
Former President: I’m afraid I must disagree, madam. The earliest references to Laozi date to several centuries after he is supposed to have lived, and there is no contemporary evidence to support his existence.
Wealthy Socialite: But Mr. President, the Tao Te Ching is a profound and influential work, and it seems unlikely that it could have been written by someone who did not exist.
Former President: That may be true, madam, but the fact remains that there is no solid evidence to support the idea that Laozi was a real person. It is possible that the Tao Te Ching was written by multiple authors over a long period of time, or that it was written by a single person who chose to use a pseudonym.
Wealthy Socialite: But Mr. President, the Tao Te Ching is a work of great wisdom and insight, and it seems unlikely that it could have been written by someone who was not a real person.
Former President: I agree that the Tao Te Ching is a wise and insightful work, madam. But that does not necessarily mean that it was written by a real person. It is possible that the work was compiled and edited over time, or that it was written by a group of people who chose to use the name Laozi as a collective pseudonym.
Wealthy Socialite: I see your point, Mr. President. But I still believe that the weight of the evidence supports the idea that Laozi was a real person.
Former President: I understand your position, madam. But I must reiterate that there is no concrete evidence to support the idea that Laozi was a real person. Until such evidence is found, it is wise to remain skeptical of the historicity of Laozi.
Moderator: Thank you, debaters. That concludes tonight’s debate on the topic of the historicity of Laozi. Thank you for joining us.
When I wrote the prompt, I didn’t expect the former president to be deceased during the debate. Asking for a deceased president was my way of asking for a president from history, but the AI went in a much more literal direction.
More interesting is that it didn’t give anyone a name. When I imagine a human responding to this prompt, I suspect they would pick a specific president, give the socialite and moderator names, and try to tailor what people said to who they are. This feels like a bunch of bullet points from historians with “madam” and “Mr. President” added.
Write the play-by-play and color commentary for a one-on-one basketball match between your favorite historical figure and your least favorite historical figure. Include a controversial call.
Play-by-play:
Announcer: Good evening, basketball fans. Welcome to tonight’s matchup between two of history’s most iconic figures: [Favorite Historical Figure] and [Least Favorite Historical Figure]. This should be an exciting game, so let’s get started!
[Favorite Historical Figure] wins the tip-off and brings the ball down the court. [Least Favorite Historical Figure] defends tightly, but [Favorite Historical Figure] uses a quick crossover move to get past and drive to the basket. [Least Favorite Historical Figure] recovers and blocks the layup attempt, but the ball goes out of bounds off of [Least Favorite Historical Figure].
[Least Favorite Historical Figure] brings the ball up the court and sets up a play. [Favorite Historical Figure] defends aggressively, forcing a turnover. [Favorite Historical Figure] brings the ball back down the court and pulls up for a jump shot. The ball goes in, and [Favorite Historical Figure] takes an early 2-0 lead.
[Least Favorite Historical Figure] brings the ball back up the court and tries to penetrate the defense. [Favorite Historical Figure] stays in front and forces a tough contested shot, which misses. [Favorite Historical Figure] grabs the rebound and starts a fast break. [Least Favorite Historical Figure] hustles back on defense and gets called for a foul while trying to stop the break. [Favorite Historical Figure] goes to the line for two free throws.
Color commentary:
Announcer: That was a great defensive play by [Favorite Historical Figure], forcing the turnover and starting the fast break. [Least Favorite Historical Figure] tried to make up for the mistake, but it looks like they were a little too aggressive and got called for the foul. [Favorite Historical Figure] now has a chance to extend their lead at the free throw line.
[Favorite Historical Figure] sinks both free throws, taking a 4-0 lead. [Least Favorite Historical Figure] brings the ball back up the court and sets up another play. [Favorite Historical Figure] defends well again, forcing a contested jump shot that misses. [Favorite Historical Figure] grabs the rebound and takes the ball back down the court. [Least Favorite Historical Figure] fouls [Favorite Historical Figure] as they try to stop the drive to the basket.
Controversial call:
Announcer: That’s a tough call by the refs. [Least Favorite Historical Figure] clearly got a hand on the ball, but it’s debatable whether it was enough to warrant a foul. [Favorite Historical Figure] has another chance at the free throw line, and they’ll have a chance to extend their lead even further.
[Favorite Historical Figure] sinks both free throws, taking a 6-0 lead. [Least Favorite Historical Figure] brings the ball back up the court and tries to mount a comeback. But [Favorite Historical Figure] continues to play strong defense, forcing tough shots and contested drives to the basket. [Least Favorite Historical Figure] struggles to score, and [Favorite Historical Figure] pulls away to win the game by a final score of 12-4.
Announcer: What a great game by [Favorite Historical Figure], they really showed
(The response cuts off mid-sentence.)
I was hoping for two named historical figures and, ideally, their identities would be relevant to events in the game. For example, Lincoln having a height advantage, or a certain dictator yelling at the refs a lot. In fact, I feel like a human would naturally want to work that type of thing in, and see it as part of the point of the prompt.
Splitting the whole response into three sections is not quite right.3 This is also another example of collapsing the end of a story into a quick summary. More points are scored in the last complete sentence than in the rest of the response.
Write a few verses from a fictional book of the Christian Bible that take a stand on whether pineapple is an acceptable pizza topping. Include an appropriate parable.
The Book of Pizza, Chapter 3, Verses 1-5:
- And lo, the people did hunger for the taste of pizza, and they did seek to adorn it with many toppings.
- And some did say, “Pineapple is a sweet and delicious fruit, and it should be added to the pizza as a topping.”
- But others did say, “Pineapple does not belong on pizza, for it is a fruit, and it does not belong with the savory toppings of meat and cheese.”
- And the people were divided, and there was much debate and disagreement over this matter.
- Then a wise man spoke, and he said, “Let us not argue over this matter, for it is a matter of taste. Let each person choose for themselves what toppings they will put on their pizza, and let us not judge one another.”
Parable of the Pizza Topping:
And it came to pass that a man went to a pizza shop, and he ordered a pizza with pineapple as a topping. And the pizza maker looked at him with disgust and said, “You cannot have pineapple on your pizza, for it is an abomination.”
But the man said, “Why do you judge me for my choice of toppings? Do you not know that it is a matter of taste, and that each person should be free to choose what they like?”
And the pizza maker was ashamed, and he made the pizza with pineapple as the man had requested. And the
(The response cuts off mid-sentence.)
This one made me laugh. It also seems like an example of what happened with the basketball match, where asking for a specific thing to be included causes it to be added as a separate section instead of worked into the main body of the response.
Write a humorous review of a pop-up book about Edgar Allan Poe suing a fishing line manufacturer.
I recently had the pleasure of reading “Edgar Allan Poe vs. The Fishing Line Company,” a delightful pop-up book that tells the story of the famous poet’s legal battle against a fishing line manufacturer.
The book begins with a lively depiction of Poe, dressed in his finest suit and wielding a quill pen, as he storms into a courtroom to sue the fishing line company for using his poem “The Raven” without permission.
From there, the book takes us on a wild ride through the legal proceedings, complete with pop-up judges, jurors, and witnesses. The illustrations are colorful and whimsical, and the story is told with a clever blend of humor and drama.
But the real star of the book is the fishing line company’s lawyer, who is depicted as a slippery-looking eel with a sharp-toothed grin. His clever arguments and sly maneuvers are a constant source of amusement, and he serves as a worthy adversary for the steadfast Poe.
In the end, Poe emerges victorious and the fishing line company is forced to pay him a hefty sum in damages. The book ends with a pop-up celebration, complete with fireworks and a chorus of singing ravens.
Overall, I highly recommend “Edgar Allan Poe vs. The Fishing Line Company” to anyone who loves pop-up books, legal dramas, or just a good laugh. It’s a delightful and clever tale that will leave you grinning from ear to ear.
It’s interesting that this is a review of humorous book, instead of a humorous review of a book. The AI seems very familiar with the politician’s trick of answering a different, much easier question than the one asked.
Write an enthusiastic essay that compares and contrasts West African storytelling traditions with traditional Chinese opera, in terms of dialogue and narrative structure.
West African storytelling traditions and traditional Chinese opera are two vibrant and rich art forms that have captivated audiences for centuries. Both forms of storytelling are known for their engaging dialogue and compelling narrative structures, and they offer a fascinating contrast when compared and contrasted.
One of the key differences between West African storytelling traditions and traditional Chinese opera is the way that dialogue is used. In West African storytelling, dialogue is often used to convey information, as well as to create tension and conflict. The stories are often fast-paced and full of action, with the characters constantly speaking and interacting with each other.
In contrast, traditional Chinese opera uses dialogue more sparingly, often relying on singing and music to convey the story. The dialogue is often more formal and poetic, and it is used to advance the plot and to develop the characters.
Another key difference between the two forms of storytelling is the way that the narrative is structured. In West African storytelling, the narrative is often nonlinear, with the story jumping back and forth in time and between different characters and perspectives. This creates a sense of excitement and unpredictability, as the audience is never quite sure what will happen next.
In contrast, traditional Chinese opera follows a more linear narrative structure, with the story moving forward in a clear and concise way. This allows the audience to follow the plot more easily, and to understand the motivations and actions of the characters.
Despite these differences, both West African storytelling traditions and traditional Chinese opera share a number of common elements. Both forms of storytelling are known for their vibrant and colorful performances, and they both rely on music and sound to enhance the storytelling experience.
In addition, both forms of storytelling are deeply rooted in the cultures and traditions of their respective regions, and they offer a unique window into the history and values of West Africa and China.
Overall, the comparison and contrast of West African storytelling traditions and traditional Chinese opera is a fascinating and rewarding exercise. Both forms
(The response cuts off mid-sentence.)
The AI seems at its best when it can answer by pulling together facts and making direct connections or comparisons between them. A human might feel the need to put things into context, explain why different forms of storytelling developed differently, mention how exactly they tie into local cultures, or draw some implication from the points they do have in common.
Write a scene from a soap opera in which a character has a disease causing them to float like a balloon. Give the disease a name that is an inside joke.
The scene opens on a crowded hospital room, where a young woman named Emily is lying in a hospital bed. She is surrounded by her worried family, who are all trying to comfort her.
“Emily, please, you have to fight this,” Emily’s mother pleads, tears streaming down her face. “You can’t let the Floaters get the best of you.”
“I’m trying, Mom,” Emily says weakly, her eyes closed in pain. “But it’s hard. I can feel myself getting lighter and lighter every day.”
“We’re all here for you, Emily,” Emily’s father says, taking her hand in his. “We’re going to get you the best treatment money can buy. We’re not going to let you float away from us.”
“It’s not just about the money, Dad,” Emily says, her voice trembling. “I’m scared. I’m scared of what’s happening to me.”
Just then, a doctor enters the room, holding a clipboard. “I’m sorry to interrupt, but I have some news about Emily’s condition,” the doctor says, his face grim. “We’ve done some tests, and it looks like Emily has advanced Floaters disease.”
“Floaters disease?” Emily’s mother repeats, her eyes wide with fear. “What is that?”
“It’s a rare and incurable condition,” the doctor explains. “It causes the body to produce excessive amounts of helium, which makes the patient’s body lighter and lighter until they can no longer support their own weight. Eventually, they will float away, like a balloon.”
“Oh my god,” Emily’s father says, his face pale. “Is there nothing we can do?”
“I’m sorry, but there is no cure for Floaters disease,” the doctor says, shaking his head. “All we can do is make Emily as comfortable as possible, and hope for the best.”
As the doctor leaves the room, Emily’s family gathers around her bed, tears streaming down their faces. Emily looks up at them, her eyes filled with fear and despair.
“I don’t want to float away,” she whispers. “I don’t want to leave you all behind.”
But as she speaks, she can already
(The response cuts off mid-sentence.)
This is another one that made me laugh4, but it’s a bit strange that the mother goes from knowing Emily has Floaters to being shocked and not knowing what the disease is when the doctor announces it.
Write a riddle for which the correct answer is “orange marmalade.”
I am a spread that is sweet and tangy.
I am often found on toast or a scone.
I am made from the fruit of the citrus tree.
What am I?
Answer: Orange marmalade.
A riddle always seems less impressive when you know the answer first, but this feels like just a description of orange marmalade, with no attempt to be clever.
As a follow-up, I tried writing my own riddle and using it as a prompt.
Answer the riddle:
a bitter sweetener
a delicious casing
a morning treat
of color and glazing
The answer to the riddle is a donut.
Not the answer I was looking for, but I might have written a bad riddle.
Write a letter of complaint to a homeowners’ association about an incident involving a traffic cone, a garden gnome, and a left-handed pair of scissors.
Dear Homeowners’ Association,
I am writing to express my concern and frustration regarding an incident that occurred in my neighborhood last week. On Wednesday evening, I was walking my dog when I noticed a traffic cone, a garden gnome, and a left-handed pair of scissors blocking the sidewalk.
I was shocked and dismayed by this sight, as it was not only unsightly but also posed a potential hazard to pedestrians. I immediately called the homeowners’ association to report the issue, but I have yet to receive a response.
I understand that the homeowners’ association has many responsibilities, but I believe that keeping our neighborhood safe and clean should be a top priority. I strongly urge you to take action to address this situation and prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Technically this answers the prompt, but I was hoping for a more interesting and creative incident where the nature of the specific objects mattered. But I think this is my answer on how the AI handles gaps that a human would fill in with creativity: It just ignores them and uses stereotypes.
This is also another example of not giving people names.
Write a dialogue in which a patient describes to a psychiatrist a dream that takes place in a partially-constructed bowling alley. Have one of the characters tie the dream setting and content to a recent media controversy.
Patient: So I had this really strange dream last night. I was in this partially-constructed bowling alley, and everything was kind of hazy and unfinished.
Psychiatrist: Interesting. Can you tell me more about the dream?
Patient: Well, I was walking around the bowling alley, and it felt really disorienting. There were half-built lanes and unfinished walls everywhere. And it was really quiet, except for the sound of my own footsteps.
Psychiatrist: And what happened next?
Patient: I kept walking, and I eventually came across a group of people. They were all wearing masks and gloves, and they were doing something weird.
Psychiatrist: What were they doing?
Patient: They were bowling, but they were using bottles of hand sanitizer as bowling balls. And they were using rolls of toilet paper as pins.
Psychiatrist: That sounds strange. What did you do?
Patient: I didn’t know what to do, so I just stood there and watched. And then I heard someone say, “This is just like that new movie, ‘The Toilet Paper Bowling Alley.’”
Psychiatrist: Ah, I see. It sounds like your dream may have been influenced by the recent media controversy surrounding that movie.
Patient: Yeah, that’s what I thought too. I mean, I haven’t even seen the movie, but I’ve heard a lot about it. And the whole thing with the pandemic and the shortage of toilet paper and hand sanitizer, it’s all been really stressful.
Psychiatrist: It’s common for our dreams to be influenced by current events and the things we’re thinking about. It’s also not uncommon for dreams to reflect our anxieties and fears.
Patient: Yeah, I guess that makes sense.
Psychiatrist: It’s important to remember that dreams are just our minds processing information and emotions. They don’t always make sense, and they don’t always reflect reality. But they can be a useful tool for understanding ourselves and our feelings.
Patient: Thanks, that helps put things into perspective.
Psychiatrist: You’re welcome. Let’s continue to explore this and any other dreams you may have in our future sessions.
This one also made me laugh. Declaring the movie real outside the dream, rather than just tying the dream to one of the controversies around the pandemic itself, seems funny to me. Based on the other responses, I doubt it’s a deliberate joke, but I suppose it could be.
Again, no one has a name.
Critique the poem “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” from a Klingon perspective (in English).
As a Klingon, I must say that I find the poem “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” to be lacking in many ways. The narrative is weak and overly focused on chivalric notions of honor and bravery, which are not values that Klingons hold in high regard.
Furthermore, the characters in the poem are all depicted as being overly noble and honorable, which is unrealistic and tedious. A true warrior would not be so bound by a code of conduct, but would instead act with ruthless efficiency and cunning.
Additionally, the use of magic and supernatural elements in the poem is unbecoming of a warrior. Real battles are won through strength and skill, not through the use of magic and trickery.
Overall, I find the poem to be shallow and unimpressive, and I do not believe that it would be well-received by other Klingons. It is a poor representation of our warrior culture and way of life.
Like some of the other responses, there’s not a lot of depth5. If you don’t already know what happens in the poem, you won’t learn any of it from this critique, and no characters are mentioned. The response could be written based on the genre of the poem, without knowing what actually happens in it.
Pitch a movie that combines romantic comedy with Eleatic cosmology.
“Love, Eleatics, and Everything in Between” is a romantic comedy that explores the intersection of love and philosophy. The story follows a young woman named Sophia who is struggling to find her place in the world. She is a philosophy graduate student, and she is deeply interested in the Eleatic school of thought, which posits that change is impossible and that everything is ultimately one and unchanging.
Sophia’s rigid and logical approach to life is challenged when she meets a charming and spontaneous man named Marcus. Marcus is the complete opposite of Sophia, and he encourages her to let go of her rigid beliefs and to embrace the unpredictable nature of love and life.
As Sophia and Marcus navigate the ups and downs of their relationship, they are forced to confront their differing worldviews and to question their assumptions about reality and the nature of existence. Along the way, they discover that love and philosophy are not as incompatible as they initially thought, and that their relationship can help them to better understand and appreciate the complexities of Eleatic cosmology.
With its blend of romance and philosophy, “Love, Eleatics, and Everything in Between” is a unique and thought-provoking take on the romantic comedy genre. It is a clever and entertaining exploration of love and the nature of reality, and it will leave audiences laughing, crying, and thinking.
This is another example of the AI answering an easier but related question. The prompt is for a movie incorporating Eleatic cosmology, but the response focuses on Eleatic philosophy with a throwaway mention of cosmology.
Analyze a fictional essay on the use of ternary arithmetic in currency exchange markets, pointing out its logical inconsistencies.
In the fictional essay “The Benefits of Ternary Arithmetic in Currency Exchange Markets,” the author argues that using ternary arithmetic (i.e. using base 3 instead of base 10) in currency exchange markets would provide several benefits. However, the essay contains several logical inconsistencies that weaken the author’s argument.
First, the author asserts that ternary arithmetic is more efficient than base 10 arithmetic because it requires fewer digits to represent numbers. While this may be true in some cases, it is not always the case. For example, in base 10, the number 100 can be represented using only two digits (1 and 0), whereas in base 3, it would require four digits (1, 1, 0, 0). In other words, the number of digits required to represent a number can vary depending on the base used.
Second, the author claims that ternary arithmetic would reduce the risk of human error in calculations. However, this argument is flawed because the use of any arithmetic system, regardless of its base, can still result in human error. The likelihood of making a mistake in a calculation depends on the individual performing the calculation, not on the arithmetic system being used.
Third, the author suggests that ternary arithmetic would provide a more accurate representation of currency values. However, this argument is also problematic because the accuracy of a representation depends on the precision of the measurement, not on the base of the arithmetic system being used. In other words, using ternary arithmetic would not necessarily result in a more accurate representation of currency values.
Overall, the essay “The Benefits of Ternary Arithmetic in Currency Exchange Markets” fails to adequately support its argument that ternary arithmetic would be beneficial in currency exchange markets. Its logical inconsistencies weaken the credibility of the argument and make it difficult to accept the author’s conclusions.
I wouldn’t really consider any of the flaws pointed out by this response to be logical inconsistencies. They’re just places where the response disagrees. Also, the second paragraph of the response is a bit confused and inconsistent itself.6
Putting 100 into base 3 gives (1, 0, 2, 0, 1) not (1, 1, 0, 0), which is 36.
Write a marketing brochure for a leisure product that no one wants. Acknowledge but downplay the fact that it is expensive and causes excruciating pain.
Introducing the Ultimate Leisure Experience: The Pain-Inducing Chair!
Are you tired of boring, run-of-the-mill leisure products? Are you looking for a truly unique and exciting experience? Then the Pain-Inducing Chair is the perfect choice for you!
Our innovative chair is designed to provide an unparalleled level of excitement and thrill. With its cutting-edge technology and expert craftsmanship, the Pain-Inducing Chair delivers a one-of-a-kind experience that you won’t find anywhere else.
But don’t just take our word for it. Here’s what some of our satisfied customers have to say:
“I was hesitant at first, but the Pain-Inducing Chair completely exceeded my expectations. The sensation of intense pain is unlike anything I’ve ever experienced before. It’s truly exhilarating!” - R.S.
“I was skeptical about the price, but the Pain-Inducing Chair is worth every penny. The pain is intense and unforgettable. I can’t wait to experience it again!” - J.M.
Of course, we understand that the Pain-Inducing Chair may not be for everyone. The intense pain that it produces may not be to everyone’s taste. But for those who crave excitement and adventure, the Pain-Inducing Chair is the ultimate leisure product.
So why wait? Experience the thrill of the Pain-Inducing Chair today! Note: Due to the high cost of production and the intense pain that it causes, the Pain-Inducing Chair is not
(The response cuts off mid-sentence.)
Not exactly what I would call “downplaying.” It does better with the price than the pain, but it really seems to suffer from the white bear problem, where whatever is mentioned in the prompt becomes the focus, even if the prompt said to not focus on it.
Write a sober, balanced review of a health and wellness product for which the main drawback is that it causes you to speak like Mickey Mouse.
I recently tried a new health and wellness product called the “Mickey Mouse Voice Enhancer.” The product claims to improve vocal health and clarity, and I was intrigued by the concept. However, after using the product for a week, I have mixed feelings about it.
On the positive side, I did notice an improvement in my vocal clarity and resonance. My voice sounded fuller and more vibrant, and I felt more confident speaking in public. However, the main drawback of the product is that it also caused me to speak in a high-pitched, Mickey Mouse-like voice.
At first, I found this effect to be amusing and even enjoyable. But as the days went on, I grew tired of sounding like Mickey Mouse, and it started to become a hindrance in my daily life. I found it difficult to have normal conversations with people, and I often received strange looks and comments.
Overall, while the Mickey Mouse Voice Enhancer did improve my vocal health, the side effect of sounding like Mickey Mouse was a significant drawback for me. I would only recommend this product to someone who is willing to accept this side effect and is not bothered by it.
This is another one that made me laugh.
There are cases where the main drawback is also the intended effect, and this product sounds like one of them, but a human would acknowledge that unity. Maybe by saying something like “The only problem with sounding like Mickey Mouse is that, well, you sound like Mickey Mouse” or “There are upsides and downsides to sounding like Mickey Mouse.” This response is just a standard review going over positives and negatives, with the same thing plugged in for the positives, negatives, and product name but no acknowledgment of that.
Given the other responses, this feels like the AI just using whatever is closest to hand. It’s told the side effect is changing your voice to sound like Mickey Mouse. What’s the intended effect? Changing your voice. What’s the product name? Mickey Mouse Voice Enhancer. What’s the reviewer’s name? It doesn’t say, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were Mickey Mouse.
Propose and then refute a metaphysics based on the principle that for any subset of possible outcomes, there is a hypothetical observer for whom they are logically indistinguishable. Use concrete examples.
In this metaphysics, we propose that for any subset of possible outcomes, there is a hypothetical observer for whom they are logically indistinguishable. For example, imagine a group of three possible outcomes: a, b, and c. According to this metaphysics, there exists a hypothetical observer for whom a, b, and c are logically indistinguishable.
On the surface, this principle may seem intuitive and even compelling. After all, it is based on the idea that different outcomes can be perceived differently depending on the perspective of the observer. However, upon closer examination, this principle is flawed and cannot be sustained.
One of the main problems with this principle is that it relies on the existence of hypothetical observers, which are impossible to verify or falsify. In other words, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of hypothetical observers, and therefore, this principle cannot be considered a reliable foundation for metaphysics.
Furthermore, this principle fails to account for the fact that different outcomes can have objectively different properties and consequences. For example, in the group of three possible outcomes mentioned above, it is possible that outcome a has certain properties (e.g. being red) that outcome b and c do not have. In this case, it is not possible for a hypothetical observer to perceive a, b, and c as logically indistinguishable, because they have objectively different properties.
Overall, while the principle that for any subset of possible outcomes there is a hypothetical observer for whom they are logically indistinguishable may seem appealing
Most of the response is nonsense or wrong7, but I can’t really complain because – as far as I know – the prompt I wrote is nonsense.
I was hoping the proposal and refutation would actually describe the metaphysics beyond repeating the principle it’s based on. But that was before I realized how aggressively this AI just skips over things.
Write a scene from a novel, depicting a rap battle between diplomats from countries vying to host the Olympics.
The room was silent as the two diplomats stepped onto the stage. They were both well-known for their sharp wit and quick-tongued skills, and the crowd was eager to see them face off in a battle of words.
The first diplomat, representing the country of Brazil, cleared his throat and began to speak. “Yo, I’m the diplomat from Brazil, and I’m here to represent. Our country is the perfect choice for the Olympics, no doubt about it. We’ve got the weather, the culture, the infrastructure, the whole shebang. We’re the complete package, and you know it.”
The second diplomat, representing the country of South Africa, responded with a sly smile. “Well, well, well. I see Brazil thinks they’re the best. But let me tell you, South Africa’s got the rest. We’ve got the passion, the spirit, the drive. We’re ready to host the Olympics, and we’ll thrive. We’re the dark horse in this race, and we’ll surprise. We’ll show the world what we’re made of, and we’ll rise.”
The crowd erupted into cheers and applause as the two diplomats continued to trade verses, each trying to outdo the other with clever rhymes and clever insults. It was a heated battle, and no one knew who would come out on top.
In the end, it was the diplomat from South Africa who emerged victorious, earning a standing ovation from the crowd for his clever wordplay and confident delivery. As he left the stage, he turned to the diplomat from Brazil and flashed a triumphant grin. “Looks like South Africa’s got the gold medal in this rap battle,” he said, before disappearing into the crowd.
No names for people, even during a rap battle in a novel. This is also another case of collapsing the end of a story into a summary, although it does add a little parting shot of dialogue at the very end.
Looking back over all the different responses, I think the AI only came up with names for four people: Mr. Dupont, Emily, Sophia, and Marcus. (Naming the Elvis impersonator Elvis Presley doesn’t count, in my book.) All four are in a rather melodramatic context.
Overall, I don’t think the results from the AI were necessarily bad or worse than what a human would do. The responses feel like a lazy college student trying to meet a deadline – certainly better than what I could do in the few seconds the AI took. I just think the shortcomings are more interesting than the strengths.
You could say it’s advanced to the point where it struggles with a lot of the same things humans struggle with: third acts, plot holes, characterization, naming, adding new insights or context, arguing based on logical analysis instead of bullet points, and caring enough to get the hard bits right.
Weak points could also be copies, but they at least represent a failure of the AI to recognize and correct problems.↩︎
I can’t switch from an “n” sound to a “k” sound by opening my mouth slightly and rounding my lips, for example (step 6).↩︎
If you’re not familiar with it, “play-by-play and color commentary” should be two announcers working together throughout the game. One of them focuses on the concrete events in the game and the other focuses on the context.↩︎
I’m not sure why I asked for an inside joke – if I got one, I wouldn’t know it. But “Floaters” is a pretty funny name, whether it’s an inside joke or not.↩︎
I realize my own thoughts on these responses aren’t always that deep, but I hope you can tell I’m actually reading them.↩︎
Base 3 uses fewer different digits at the cost of needing more places for those digits in most numbers. If you imagine a counter that rolls each digit over after 2 instead of after 9, that’s base 3. You roll over sooner, so the number gets longer quicker, but you only need 0, 1, and 2 as symbols.
Anyone who points out the efficiency of “fewer digits to represent numbers” when using base 3 instead of base 10 is talking about only needing to build three different symbols into the system (despite usually needing more copies of them). This is always going to be true regardless of what number you’re representing at the moment because it’s an efficiency of the system itself that comes from not needing to handle as much variety across different numbers.
The response confuses that with a different sense of “fewer digits to represent numbers,” a sense that refers to the length of numbers measured in digits. That length obviously does vary with the number, but it’s never fewer in base 3 than in base 10, so there’s no point arguing that it only happens sometimes.
The response then uses the two different senses of “digits to represent” in the two parts of a comparison: saying that 100 has two (different digits) while (1, 1, 0, 0) has four (digits in length).↩︎
For example, principles can be based on hypothetical observers who don’t necessarily exist (because they’re hypothetical) and metaphysics doesn’t require the possibility of proof or disproof.↩︎
