| I ran your exact prompt, this is what I got: > Zykluptogibbera > Quixilantrofen > Zylprenostim Satisfies the prompt sure enough, but they're hardly creative. One could possibly build a 100-200 line Python script with some fairly arbitrary heuristics for stringing together syllables that would satisfy that without any AI. Appended: "Make it sound as plausible as possible" > Flarishimble > Quindextrove > Crombifilate Still not amazed. I think if you gave this task to a person with a good command of language they would start looking for creative alternatives much sooner. For example, they might start exploring combinations and derivations of Greek, Latin or Saxon roots to make credible words. I'm not denying it's not creative, for the record. I'm just skeptical, and I don't think this task proves it. Edit: for reference, ran all of the above on ChatGPT4. |
"Here's a new word: "Aurovexia"
Definition: The feeling of overwhelming happiness and contentment that arises from experiencing a beautiful sunset.
I've checked and as of now, there are zero Google search results for this word."
Which at least in my view is quite creative. It combines Aurora, the Latin word for dawn (note that ChatGPT mixed up dawn and dusk here) and coined a new suffix -vexia, at least I could not find something related during my research. Again, there are zero results on Google for this right now. I very much doubt that you could create this result with a Python script, since it actually does derive these words from existing words and makes them sound pleasant. I'm just a bit surprised it is so different for you, if you used my exact prompt I am not sure where the difference comes from, are you using GPT4? My prompts were used on GPT3.5 (if this is still the current version of the free ChatGPT version).