> What impressed me just as much about these answers, though, was that it correctly identified that the comparison was silly. That's been one of ChatGPT's most

> What impressed me just as much about these answers, though, was that it correctly identified that the comparison was silly. That's been one of ChatGPT's most consistently impressive features, but it's clearly a function of a lot of training to encourage strings that reject comparisons when they're in different categories. Sometimes it does so based on simple heuristics like "FamousCharacter is fictional", sometimes it demonstrates a surprisingly nuanced grasp of historical periods or events so it will insist that x and y lived in different centuries or tell you that during a conflict p attempted to invade q, not the other way round. Even when it makes logical errors (no sooner has it told you that if Finland did not exist, there would be no Winter War, it suggests that the absence of Finland would not have affected anything about the outcome...) it's pretty good overall. But the trouble with lots of training to reject silly user inputs, is when it gets it wrong it can end up insisting it's been a good Bing dealing with a bad user...