For the specific example the OP cited "War: like being eaten by a dragon and then having it spit you out"
then unless its answer to "Where were you in between being eaten by a dragon and before it spat you out?" is "in the dragon's digestive system" that isn't understanding.
And I'm curious to see it answer "Dragons only exist in mythology; does your analogy mean war doesn't exist either? Why not compare to an animal that exists?"
This exact text, and the response (several attempts) is flagged and censored, with ChatGPT-4 web interface. :-|
Sure, I can compare it to a real animal such as bears. Just like dragons are depicted as fearsome and destructive creatures in mythology, bears are also portrayed as powerful and dangerous animals in many cultures. However, just as the existence of dragons is a matter of fiction, the concept of a "war on bears" would also be nonsensical.
In reality, the issue of war is complex and multifaceted, involving political, economic, and societal factors. It cannot be reduced to a simplistic battle between humans and a particular animal species.
Furthermore, the use of animals in analogies can be problematic as it may trivialize the gravity and complexity of real-world issues. Wars and conflicts have serious consequences for human lives, whereas animals do not possess the same agency or ability to wage war.
In conclusion, while dragons may serve as a metaphor for war in mythology, comparing war to a fictional creature diminishes the seriousness of the topic and fails to capture the complexities of real conflicts.
It would demonstrate basic reasoning skills that weren't things one would "reproduce, mix and match text from an enormous corpus". Like the response you provided, which is meaningless word salad. It's a prima facie takedown of your post.
This is like people who hate poetry, insisting their bad poetry is good poetry. Why? Because who else is to say otherwise! Well, the good poets. The people that appreciate poetry will know the difference. Everyone else wont care, save for those invested in having to sell their bad poetry as good.
