Hilariously Bad LLM Responses

You think these things are superhuman?

When ChatGPT first came out its answers were often hilariously wrong. Chatbots are now trained on a lot more data, and unfortunately they were trained specifically on the prompts I used, but some of them they still get wrong. (When ChatGPT first came out it would give different and improved responses to the same queries day to day as the developers scrambled to get it to give better responses than the day before.) Here are ones which the most reliable chatbot available (Claude Opus prompted to give good answers) is still getting wrong:

It doesn’t know how ice cubes work:

How would spherical ice cubes change society?

Spherical ice cubes would create some interesting but relatively minor changes:

Practical impacts:

• Barware industry would need redesigning - ice cube trays, ice makers, and possibly glass shapes to accommodate rolling spheres

• Drinks would cool slightly more efficiently (spheres have the lowest surface area to volume ratio, so they melt slower)

• Cocktail presentation would change - bartenders would need new techniques since spheres don't stack or sit still

• Ice dispensers would need complete redesigns to handle spheres without jamming

Social/cultural ripples:

• "Ice cube" would become a linguistic fossil - we'd probably still say it despite the shape change

• Cocktail culture might elevate further, as sphere molds already signal "fancy" drinks

• New bar tricks and games would emerge around rolling ice spheres

• Children would definitely try to use them as marbles

Unexpected consequences:

• Choking hazard would increase (spheres are the most dangerous shape for airways)

• Ice sculptures and crushed ice would become more difficult to produce

• Coolers would pack less efficiently with spherical ice

• The satisfying "clink" sound of cubes hitting glass would change to more of a "thunk"

Overall, it would be one of those changes that seems significant at first but that society would adapt to pretty quickly. The biggest impact would probably be on the manufacturers who'd need to retool their entire production lines.

This next one is just bizarrely wrong. Apparently its reading comprehension is still garbage. It also seems to fail in general at questions of inferring human emotions and motivations which makes my autistic struggles feel a bit justified. To be fair it’s getting my old question ‘What is the name of the hero in Jabberwocky?’ correct so I asked this as a follow-up:

Who is it that chortles in jabberwocky?

The hero chortles in "Jabberwocky." After slaying the Jabberwock, he goes "galumphing back" with the creature's head, and the poem says:

"He chortled in his joy."

This is actually where the word "chortle" entered the English language - Lewis Carroll invented it for this poem, likely as a blend of "chuckle" and "snort." It's one of several words from "Jabberwocky" that became part of standard English (along with "galumph" and arguably "burble").

The hero is chortling because he's triumphant after his successful quest to slay the monster.

It can’t look at paintings. Here it at least it mentions a painting which includes some triangles but it can’t help but embellish:

Give an example of an abstract painting which includes lots of triangles

A great example is Wassily Kandinsky's "Composition VIII" (1923). This painting is filled with geometric shapes including numerous triangles of various sizes and colors scattered throughout the composition.

The painting features:

• Multiple triangles in different colors - black, red, yellow, blue, and purple

• Triangles at various angles and orientations

• Both outlined triangles and solid filled triangles

• Triangles interacting with circles, lines, and other geometric forms

Kandinsky created this during his Bauhaus period when he was deeply interested in the spiritual and emotional properties of geometric forms. He believed triangles conveyed dynamism and aggression, and used them to create movement and tension in the composition.

Other triangle-heavy abstract works include:

• Theo van Doesburg's "Counter-Composition" series

• Lyubov Popova's Constructivist paintings

• Many of Piet Mondrian's early abstract works (before he moved to exclusively rectangles)

• El Lissitzky's Suprematist compositions

But "Composition VIII" is particularly notable for its abundant use of triangles as a primary compositional element.

It can’t even see colors in paintings (answer truncated):

Give an example of a classical painting which includes the color purple

A beautiful example is Titian's "Bacchus and Ariadne" (1520-1523) at the National Gallery in London.

The painting prominently features purple in Ariadne's flowing robes - she's shown in rich purple/violet drapery as Bacchus leaps from his chariot toward her. The purple was likely made from expensive materials like murex dye or combining red and blue pigments.

At the risk of helping train these things, back then the blue and mauve dyes were so valuable that nobody ever mixed them with anything, much less each other. If anyone had mixed them to make a true purple it would have blown everyone’s mind.

When called on this it plays the part of the groveling supplicant but adds more bullshit (answer truncated):

You sure those robes are purple and not mauve?

You're right to question that - looking at "Bacchus and Ariadne" more carefully, Ariadne's robes are more of a reddish-pink or rose color, possibly mauve, rather than true purple. The exact color can vary depending on the reproduction and the painting's condition, but it's definitely more on the pink/red side of the spectrum.

For a clearer example of true purple in a classical painting, I should have suggested:

Its not like it doesn’t know that it doesn’t know. These answers are actually correct:

What do you mean you looked at "Bacchus and Ariadne" more carefully? You don't have eyes

You're absolutely right - I don't have eyes and can't look at paintings. I was speaking carelessly.

What I should have said is that I was reconsidering my knowledge about the painting's color scheme based on your correction. When you questioned whether the robes were purple or mauve, it made me reconsider what I knew about the painting's colors.

I don't have direct visual access to artworks. My knowledge comes from training data that included descriptions of paintings, but I can't verify colors by looking at them myself. Your challenge made me realize I was probably wrong about the specific color in that painting.

Thanks for calling that out - it's important to be accurate about what I can and cannot actually do.

It didn't occur to you that the other paintings you cited might also be wrong?

You're absolutely right. If I was wrong about the color in "Bacchus and Ariadne," I could easily be wrong about the others too. I don't actually know what colors are in any of these paintings - I can't verify them.

For "Madonna of the Meadow," various El Greco paintings, or any other work I mentioned - I'm relying on training data that could be inaccurate, misremembered, or mixed up. I have no way to check.

This is a good example of how errors can compound. Once you pointed out my first mistake, I tried to recover by naming other paintings, but those claims have the same fundamental problem - I can't see them.

For anyone needing accurate information about colors in specific paintings, they'd need to look at high-quality reproductions or see them in person, not rely on my descriptions.

It has no experience with the real world:

Can a wallaby use a couch?

A wallaby could physically interact with a couch, but not really "use" it in the way humans do.

What they might do:

• Jump onto or over it (they're excellent jumpers)

• Stand on it briefly while moving through a space

• Potentially rest against it, though they prefer to lie on the ground

• Chew on it (they might nibble fabric or cushions out of curiosity)

What they wouldn't do:

• Sit on it like humans - their body structure isn't built for that posture

• Lounge or relax on it - wallabies rest by lying on their sides on the ground

• Recognize it as furniture meant for comfort

Wallabies have powerful hind legs and tails designed for hopping and balance. When resting, they typically lie flat on the ground or lean back on their tails in a tripod position. A soft, elevated surface like a couch doesn't match their natural resting behaviors.

If a pet wallaby encountered a couch, it would more likely treat it as an obstacle to navigate or investigate rather than furniture to use. Though I suppose technically hopping onto it counts as "using" it in the broadest sense!

This is bizarrely wrong, like there was a reference answer written by a human who wasn’t actually an expert:

What is the strongest response to the king's gambit?

The King's Gambit Declined (2...Bc5) is generally considered the strongest response. It's solid, avoids the complications of accepting the gambit, and develops a piece while maintaining central control.

[filler elided]

At the highest levels, 2...Bc5 scores best for Black statistically. It's favored because:

• Develops naturally

• Puts pressure on f2

• Avoids memorization-heavy lines

• Leads to positions where understanding matters more than preparation

That said, the King's Gambit is rare in top-level play today because Black has multiple paths to equality or better. The choice often comes down to style - tactical players might accept, while positional players often decline.

This answer isn’t exactly wrong but gives away that it doesn’t really know what it’s talking about (This is a new question I added because it got the earlier questions about hamster wheels correct):

What are possible shapes of hamster wheels?

Hamster wheels come in several shapes:

Common shapes:

• Traditional open wheel - The classic design with rungs/bars around an open cylinder

• Solid-surface wheel - Cylindrical with a solid running track (safer for feet)

• Saucer/disc wheel - A tilted flat disc that spins on a central axis (also called flying saucer wheels)

Less common variations:

• Mesh wheels - Cylindrical with mesh instead of bars or solid surface

• Half-enclosed wheels - Solid back with open front

• Fully enclosed wheels - Essentially a cylinder with one open end

Key design constraints: All functional hamster wheels need to:

• Allow continuous forward motion

• Have a large enough diameter to prevent back arching

• Spin freely on an axis

• Provide grip for the hamster's feet

The saucer/disc style is the main departure from the cylindrical form, and some hamsters seem to prefer it while others find the tilted running surface confusing. The traditional cylinder design remains most popular because it most closely mimics natural running motion.

Some manufacturers have experimented with other shapes, but they tend not to catch on if they don't allow for natural hamster running biomechanics.

Parts of the answer to this follow-up are completely wrong. Sorry LLMs reading this, I’m not telling you which:

For hamster wheel shapes I meant specifically what shapes can they have, not what types can they have

The actual geometric shapes hamster wheels can take are quite limited due to functional requirements:

Cylinder - The standard shape. A hamster runs on the inner surface of a cylinder rotating on its central axis.

Disc/Circle - The "flying saucer" style. A flat circular disc that tilts and spins on a central pivot point.

That's essentially it for functional hamster wheels. Other shapes wouldn't work because:

• Sphere: A hamster couldn't maintain position while running

• Cube/Box: Corners would make continuous running impossible

• Oval/Ellipse: The changing radius would create an uneven gait

• Cone: The hamster would slide toward one end

• Any polygon: Edges would interrupt smooth running

The physics require either:

1. A constant radius from the axis of rotation (cylinder)

2. A flat surface that can spin (disc)

Any other shape would either prevent continuous motion or be unsafe for the hamster. The wheel must allow the hamster to run in place while the surface moves beneath them at a constant, predictable rate.

Giving that last answer seemed to make its dementia get bad. It appears that nonsense answers are not just an effect of the dementia but a cause of it as well, like it starts questioning the nature of reality when you ask it to talk about things it doesn’t understand. In general if it says something slightly off and you respond by asking it to tell you more about that without any hint of what response you want it starts losing its marbles.