Yeah had this to. I made it write a powershell script. But i needed a few this added/changed.
At first it looked correct, until i saw that he just left out a whole function, i said to fix that, it did, but then it left out another part, wtf, last try again a different part.
I think they did that to make it look unthrustworthy in all it spews out.
It was yo precise in the beginning. They just made it look stupid now. Less then humans, so people think they have a long way to go, to get where it gets interesting.
When having it code scripts the longer the chat goes on the more likely it is to fuck shit up...
After a few tries you need to take the script it's already given you and paste it into a new chat with more refined instructions, based on what you already learned from the previous chat and the iterations it produced.
One (perception) needs all (perceivable), while being tempted (suggestion) to want from other ones.
added/change
Addition within change implies ones inception; subtraction within change implies ones death. Only change (inception towards death) adds and subtracts (life).
left out a whole
Whole implies out for each partial within. A whole cannot be left out...out of what? More than whole?
added/changed...I said to fix that
a) How could one fix change without contradicting the implied motion thereof?
b) Could affixed (suggested words) tempt one to ignore ongoing (perceivable sound)?
i said to fix...they just made it look stupid
STUPID; adjective - "stop; cessation of motion"...isn't that what affixing change implies?
untrustworthy
a) Does nature suggest one to add an affixed worth to trust? Does nature require trust from those within?
b) What if nature implies whole (all perceivable value) generating partials (ones evaluation by perception)...would that require trust?
c) What if others suggest values, while tempting ones free will of choice to consent aka to trust them?
GIBBERISH; noun - "language of rogues and gypsies" aka rogare (to ask) + gyp (to cheat)
Perceivable sound implies natural; suggested words imply artificial...the latter asks for ones consent, which when given, cheats one within former.
Nature doesn't ask any questions, nor does it require any answers...it simply implies solution (inception towards death) to each problem (life), hence cheating aka escheat - "that which falls to one".
iv come across this before. It did the same thing when i asked it about the Rupes Nigra and also when i was asking it about flagellants.
Im pretty sure this happens when there is conflicting conclusion or opinions on the subject. This program cant decide what is actually right when presented with opposing viewpoints.
whenever it give you an answer like that ask it to "elaborate on the controversial nature of the subject." and you might get more out of it.
Yeah had this to. I made it write a powershell script. But i needed a few this added/changed. At first it looked correct, until i saw that he just left out a whole function, i said to fix that, it did, but then it left out another part, wtf, last try again a different part.
I think they did that to make it look unthrustworthy in all it spews out.
It was yo precise in the beginning. They just made it look stupid now. Less then humans, so people think they have a long way to go, to get where it gets interesting.
When having it code scripts the longer the chat goes on the more likely it is to fuck shit up...
After a few tries you need to take the script it's already given you and paste it into a new chat with more refined instructions, based on what you already learned from the previous chat and the iterations it produced.
Eventually it will give you something functional.
One (perception) needs all (perceivable), while being tempted (suggestion) to want from other ones.
Addition within change implies ones inception; subtraction within change implies ones death. Only change (inception towards death) adds and subtracts (life).
Whole implies out for each partial within. A whole cannot be left out...out of what? More than whole?
a) How could one fix change without contradicting the implied motion thereof?
b) Could affixed (suggested words) tempt one to ignore ongoing (perceivable sound)?
STUPID; adjective - "stop; cessation of motion"...isn't that what affixing change implies?
a) Does nature suggest one to add an affixed worth to trust? Does nature require trust from those within?
b) What if nature implies whole (all perceivable value) generating partials (ones evaluation by perception)...would that require trust?
c) What if others suggest values, while tempting ones free will of choice to consent aka to trust them?
AI wasn't made for what you're trying to use it for and so that's why you're getting bad results.
See here: https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/17t1yBRJzD/the-unreliability-of-ai/c
I don't know, let's see you purposely make it "snafu" with gibberish.
in that post I linked to are experiments you can run that will make it produced bad info...
but it's very good at making that bad info sound correct.. it will not sound like gibberish even if it is.
but pay attention and and fact check its answers. The point is it's not designed to give you answers. it's designed to generate words on a page.
GIBBERISH; noun - "language of rogues and gypsies" aka rogare (to ask) + gyp (to cheat)
Perceivable sound implies natural; suggested words imply artificial...the latter asks for ones consent, which when given, cheats one within former.
Nature doesn't ask any questions, nor does it require any answers...it simply implies solution (inception towards death) to each problem (life), hence cheating aka escheat - "that which falls to one".
iv come across this before. It did the same thing when i asked it about the Rupes Nigra and also when i was asking it about flagellants.
Im pretty sure this happens when there is conflicting conclusion or opinions on the subject. This program cant decide what is actually right when presented with opposing viewpoints.
whenever it give you an answer like that ask it to "elaborate on the controversial nature of the subject." and you might get more out of it.