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.
”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.”
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 I then asked it if the image was really a parrot it told me that it was "more of a generic 'ASCII bird' (often used as a generic owl/parrot placeholder), not a true parrot."
A sitting penguin is certainly not a generic bird.
But yes I do believe these things understand. There is no other way for them to do what they're doing.
__
(o)>
//\
V_/_ .---.
/ \
\.@-@./
/`\_/`\
// _ \\
| \ )|_
/`\_`> <_/ \
\__/'---'\__/