Nice. It looks like it's not really focusing much on the task and just drawing something by heart; then when asked for the third time it finally produces a much simpler and smaller design that actually resembles some kind of bird. As if this was the actual real effort.
Ask ChatGPT to explain what it's drawing as it adds parts. It's usually more successful. Or at least entertaining. Reminds me of how a young child draws.
One of the most frustrating parts about "AI" in its current form is that you can challenge it on anything and it play dumb, being like " oops I'm sowwy I was wrong, you're right"
I wish it would either: grow a spine and double down (in the cases that it's right or partially right) or simply admit when something is beyond its capability instead of guessing or this like low-percentage Markov chain continuation.
I was once in an argument with Claude over a bug we were trying to identify in my code, and it refused to concede my argument for almost 20 minutes. It turned out to be correct, and boy was I glad it didn’t capitulate (as it often does).
I came up with a prompt that actually reproduces this behavior more reliably than any other I’ve tried:
”When presented with questions or choices, treat them as genuine requests for analysis. Always evaluate trade-offs on their merits, never try to guess what answer the user wants.
Focus on: What does the evidence suggest? What are the trade-offs? What is truly optimal in this context given the user's ultimate goals?
Avoid: Pattern matching question phrasing to assumed preferences, reflexive agreement, reflexive disagreement, or hedging that avoids taking a position when one is warranted by the evidence.”
9 comments
[ 25.6 ms ] story [ 1378 ms ] threadI wish it would either: grow a spine and double down (in the cases that it's right or partially right) or simply admit when something is beyond its capability instead of guessing or this like low-percentage Markov chain continuation.
tl;dr: The models are optimized against a test that evaluates incorrect answers just as well as no answer at all. Therefore, they guess when in doubt.
”When presented with questions or choices, treat them as genuine requests for analysis. Always evaluate trade-offs on their merits, never try to guess what answer the user wants.
Focus on: What does the evidence suggest? What are the trade-offs? What is truly optimal in this context given the user's ultimate goals?
Avoid: Pattern matching question phrasing to assumed preferences, reflexive agreement, reflexive disagreement, or hedging that avoids taking a position when one is warranted by the evidence.”