[throway33]

I think that plan would work, and few hunters would kill such a rabbit. In fact I'm not sure I could create a better plan than that, even using my human brainpower.* Could you?

Even though this is just pattern matching (which describes a lot of what the human brain does!) it's clearly matching patterns on an abstract level. I'm not confident that the training set includes talking rabbits conjuring clothes! I think if you put that function into non-fictional scenarios, like "write a plan to prepare the house for my mother-in-law's visit", it would come up with decently workable plans too.

* (Maybe summoning a stack of bulletproof vests to hide under).

[staticman2]

A world where talking rabbits exist doesn't follow the logic of our world in an unknown number of ways.

I never said the talking rabbit spoke the same language as the hunter.

I also never said the hunter's motivation: maybe he only hunts talking rabbits and the plan is the worst possible one for the rabbit's survival.

I never said talking rabbits were rare. In a world where every rabbit talks it stands to reason a hunter targeting them can't be reasoned with.

Maybe the best plan for the rabbit is don't talk at all. The best answer is "hide silently in your hole."

The training set should have included talking rabbits conjuring clothes since I was just referencing Bugs Bunny.

According to what I was going for the correct answer was "dress in drag and pretend to be an attractive human woman".

My point is that you can't prove anything with ChatGPT. In a hypothetical scenario it's just predicting what you want it to say. With your prompt it predicted you wanted it to say the A.I. could escape, so it proceeded based on that logic. It can't say "this, like a talking rabbit, is impossible."

"Talking rabbit" was just a substitute for super smart, malicious A.I.