I'm not sure how many people have messed around with the Character.ai beta but personally I'm awed that it does some of the things it does. It predictably fails

I'm not sure how many people have messed around with the Character.ai beta but personally I'm awed that it does some of the things it does. It predictably fails at times and makes some odd mistakes, but at other times it insightfully points things out that I hadn't considered and explains itself quite eloquently when prompted. It's a lot better discussing literature and philosophy than science, though... and a compulsive liar. But a human editor willing to paper over the inconsistencies can definitely churn out articles in a fraction of the time with language models like this. And in regular conversation it's easily up there with, or surpasses, your average internet troll (which, as you pointed out, isn't exactly a high bar).