I don't think that's the natural interpretation of that sentence. I guess it just goes to show how subjective the natural interpretation of a sentence can be.

I don't think that's the natural interpretation of that sentence. I guess it just goes to show how subjective the natural interpretation of a sentence can be. Semantics aside, the substance seems to be that, if you publish GPT-3 failures, and the right person sees your publications, that person will (possibly via a team of mechanical turks) submit some narrowly fit changes to the GPT-3 responses which will make subsequent asks of the _exact_same_question_ not return such stupid answers (the same question asked a different way, still will), without solving the underlying issue of the model not actually understanding the question, and thus not actually being as generalizably smart as it is presented to be