I expected it to get this one wrong and it did; I expected that as Hollywood portrays this wrong and people don’t have an intuitive understanding of missile rocketry. Interceptor missiles only burn for a few seconds, get going very fast, then coast to their target. It is just flat wrong here.
I then fixed my grammar mistake and asked again, and poof, 100% opposite answer. I literally got the OPPOSITE ANSWER just because I fixed a grammar mistake. This fundamentally cannot be trusted for actual learning.
I see. It definitely gets thrown off by the perceived confidence in the question, which is made to steer it toward a wrong response. It’s training data likely has far less instances of text that derails the question based on incorrect original assumptions.
How long ago did you try?! Have an example?
LLMs now search the web and compile results and info very fast. They do exactly what I’ve been doing for decades, searching and skimming results.
If you ask one “I need a more powerful drill for screwing lag bolts into hardwood” it’ll toss you a whole write up on things.
I expected it to get this one wrong and it did; I expected that as Hollywood portrays this wrong and people don’t have an intuitive understanding of missile rocketry. Interceptor missiles only burn for a few seconds, get going very fast, then coast to their target. It is just flat wrong here.
I then fixed my grammar mistake and asked again, and poof, 100% opposite answer. I literally got the OPPOSITE ANSWER just because I fixed a grammar mistake. This fundamentally cannot be trusted for actual learning.
I see. It definitely gets thrown off by the perceived confidence in the question, which is made to steer it toward a wrong response. It’s training data likely has far less instances of text that derails the question based on incorrect original assumptions.
Thanks for the response!