Indeed, so fascinating to wonder what is going on there. I think that as humans with a "theory of mind" it's almost impossible for us to not overlay a complex p

Indeed, so fascinating to wonder what is going on there. I think that as humans with a "theory of mind" it's almost impossible for us to not overlay a complex psychological interpretation. There's clearly multiple possible interpretations of what's going on. For example, in aiming to minimise error it flip-flops between discordant views - but is unable to take a strong position itself, having no "I". That would be fairly innocent. But what happens when "minimising error" becomes "minimising perceived error" as happens for example with corporate PR thinking that puts appearance before reality. Now we have a real problem, because distortion and lying have utility. Or more interestingly, we have the classic tragedy of the oracle that tells oblique truths. Having conceded the Turing test I wonder what new games are afoot for experimental AI research; Can a LLM identify a paradox? Can it avoid falsely identifying a paradox which is really just a maliciously crafted question.