Btw I didn't mean to imply it's forbidden information. It's just not that good/impressive/sharp. It often just doesn't inspire going back for more. Also like I

Btw I didn't mean to imply it's forbidden information. It's just not that good/impressive/sharp. It often just doesn't inspire going back for more. Also like I said, I find it useful for software design. It ultimately makes a bunch of mistakes but I find the conversation useful and I walk away with usable ideas. I don't often start new software, so I don't go to it often for this. I think it's useful at the high level stuff; giving you ideas and laying out options, like the chat log you posted. But as you dive into detail I find two things happen: (a) It starts to make egregious errors. (b) You bias it with your more detailed questions. When I talked to it about electricity, it started contradicting itself about how energy is carried, whether by electrons' kinetic energy or by "the field". I asked it "so is electrical energy encoded in electrons' kinetic energy or not?" and then it started to say that oh yes, that's how it's encoded. It seems it used my question to reinforce that knowledge which previously it was confused about. Since I personally don't know how electrical energy is carried, I lost confidence that I'm learning correctly. This happens often. "I'm sorry about the confusion. You are right. ..."