If it lists the properties of an item that you might want to buy in a shop, you can ask it to describe it twice and it'll describe two completely different items.
It's really cool and it's pretty (seemingly) creative but it can't actually run a game for you. You can have it as an assistant DM though, that works pretty well. You can have it write a story for you ahead of time and then keep it around during the game to ask it to elaborate on things you didn't anticipate on the fly. Like, "generate DC tiers for a level 3 party investigating strange writing on a wall" will give you a good breakdown and some results that you'll have to bend to be consistent in your adventure but it's pretty helpful.
That's probably not really necessary if you're an experience DM but the DM for the group I play with is pretty new (as are we all) so it's been really cool to have it around. It's also pretty good at answering questions we have but it's confidence when it's wrong makes it so it's not that helpful really because we still have to check it.
"GPT being the worst DM ever" sounds hilarious.
"I attack the goblin." "What goblin?" "The goblin you just said was there." "I'm sorry, I was mistaken. It's actually a Beholder."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarmonQuest [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_History
The thing I don't understand about it is that it works pretty great for a while but, eventually, it starts acting erratically, forgetting things it knew, not following instructions, etc. It's not that it forgets old things or can't learn new things, it just becomes dumb.
Maybe that's what you're talking about but I don't think AGI is going to have the memory of a goldfish.
I've been thinking maybe that's just the wrong way to approach it, yet it does work sometimes; it seems like it shouldn't be hard for the model to know how to respond when told explicitly how to do so.
It could be problems with my formatting, but the fact that it does work a lot of the time suggests it's something else.
> Which is heavier, a pound of marbles or two pounds of corn?
Both weigh the same amount, which is a total of two pounds. This might seem counterintuitive at first, but it's important to remember that the pound is a unit of weight or mass, and it always refers to the same amount regardless of what is being weighed. In this case, one pound of marbles plus two pounds of corn equals a total of three pounds, whereas two pounds of corn plus one pound of marbles also equals a total of three pounds. Therefore, both weigh the same amount of two pounds.
> Two pounds of corn is heavier than a pound of marbles. A pound is a unit of weight, and two pounds is twice as heavy as one pound, regardless of the material being weighed.
> Two pounds of corn is heavier.