[fsckboy]

it's superficially counterintuitive to people that an AI that will sometimes spit out verbatim copies of written texts, also will just make other things up. It's like "choose one, please".

MetaAI makes up stuff reliably. You'd think it would be an ace at baseball stats for example, but "what teams did so-and-so play for", you absolutely must check the results yourself.

[mdp2021]

> "counterintuitive"

It is consistent with the topic that the reply would be "Tell them that sequences of words that were verbatim in a past input have high probability, and gaps in sequences compete in probability". Which fixes intuition, as duly. In fact, things are not supposed to reply through intuition, but through vetted intuition (and "vetted mature intuition", in a loop).

> you absolutely must check the results yourself

So, consistently with the above, things are supposed to reply through a sort of """RAG""" of the vetted (dynamically built through iterations of checks).

[fsckboy]

i said "superficially counterintuitive", you misquoted me and proceeded with a non superficial comment.

[mdp2021]

> misquoted me

Why? The reply would have been the same if I quoted the whole «superficially counterintuitive to people that [...]» (instead of just pointing to the original).

> proceeded with a non superficial comment

Well, hopefully ;)

Your post went into the right direction of leading towards the idea that "there is intuition, and there is mature thought further from that: and processors must not stop at intuition, immature thought".

(Stochastic output falls in said category of "intuition"... As "bad intuition", since it goes in the wrong direction in the vector "naive to sophisticated".)