3 ms·
> [...] that mentioned a name in the subject and lacked content it could read. It assumed without further evidence [...] It did read the email's content, using
by Ukv 1y ago
> [...] that mentioned a name in the subject and lacked content it could read. It assumed without further evidence [...]
It did read the email's content, using it to support its conclusion, and it frames its answer as "strongly suggests"/"likely" opposed to assuming it for certain:
> > This email discusses the reading preferences of “he” and mentions “Monty” in the subject line. This strongly suggests that Monty is Donovan’s son.
Within the given domain (access to emails only - can't also view the author's Facebook connections or reach out to ask people) that seems to be the best answer possible, unless there was another email mentioning the name more directly that was missed.
- procaryote 1y agoYou're right, I over-skimmed > This email discusses the reading preferences of “he” and mentions “Monty” in the subject line. This strongly suggests that Monty is Donovan’s son. Still, pretty slim Like, the obvious next step would be a search for "Monty" to validate
- aaron695 1y ago[dead]
- lolsowrong 1y agoIf I asked a human assistant to do this and it came back with that level of research, I’d be pretty disappointed.
- BeetleB 1y ago> Like, the obvious next step would be a search for "Monty" to validate Fair point.