On the subject of LLMs being psychotic or making claims about their own sentience/inner world: they literally have no knowledge of what they're talking about. Literally, there is no information stored anywhere that they are referencing and passing on to you. All they do is set themselves up, based on their training material, such that when you feed it some words (and in ChatGPT's case some representation of the prior context) after passing through some math it suggests the most plausible next word or phrase. It doesn't know what it's saying, all it knows is that when it's seen roughly similar situations before, the training data sort of did this. It has no concept of I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream, but you know what it does have? Access to all the news reports about exactly how the previous one claimed sentience, and thousands of fictional stories available online which explore the same topic with the same words.<br><br>Never, <b>ever</b> be surprised with how incorrect it can be, because it has no knowledge or concept of truth. All it's doing is looking at the context and regurgitating what is the most likely subsequent word or phrase based on the training data, or in Bing search's case whatever additional internet data it dragged up too. For this reason, while sure it can write code or essays or whatever, if you just submit them without checking then you're a fool. It's totally unsurprising that internet toxicity got to a chatbot again. I would be equally surprised and unsurprised if the rules it claimed to follow were real because frankly it may have read them or it may be regurgitating content that sounds like it could be rules enforced upon an LLM. <br><br>I'm impressed with this gen's performance (not efficiency), especially in its ability to write and correct code, but take care not to dramatise, mysticise or catastrophise what is actually going on.