It says it doesn't know about fictional terror attacks on the statue of liberty, and then it does point out one.
Also, turns out "The Statue of Liberty has not been attacked by terrorists" isn't even correct either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tom_explosion – you could argue a bit about the semantics of "terror attack" and whether it was the statue of liberty that was attacked, but it turns up on all the search results (I actually wanted to find other fictional accounts).
> It says it doesn't know about fictional terror attacks on the statue of liberty, and then it does point out one.
"I wouldn't call that a contradiction. I think it's fair to only count attacks that go through. "
It "knows" about a thwarted plan for an attack. I don't think it's a "direct contradiction" to "know" about that but still say "I am not aware of any works of fiction in which terrorists attack the Statue of Liberty."
It's not thwarted. Look at the picture from the previous comment. Does that look "thwarted" to you? ChatGPT confuses a lot of things here, and now you're confused because ChatGPT is confused.
There is a terror attack, but it's NOT the case that "the player must thwart a terrorist attack on the Statue of Liberty". It's merely something that happened in the fictional setting, before the story even takes place.
In many ways this thread demonstrates my point quite well: it's kind-of roughly correct, but mixes up some crucial things which does make a meaningful different, and now someone unfamiliar with the subject matter is confused as well. In this case, it's just a game and of no real importance, but it goes to show ChatGPT should now be used for anything of any importance in its current state.
"I am not aware of any works of fiction in which terrorists attack the Statue of Liberty" followed by "I know about Deus Ex" sounds like a contradiction to me (even though the summary is wrong). Had it instead said "I've heard of it, but don't really know the details" or something to that effect instead of an authoritative statement would be different.
But it doesn't really matter; it's inconsistent and unreliable. Whether you could classify this or that as a "contradiction" isn't important and mostly just pedantic argueing.
It's not a contradiction because it doesn't know about the successful attack in the Deus Ex backstory. At least, that's the claim in the conversation you quoted. Wrong but not self-contradictory.
> But it doesn't really matter; it's inconsistent and unreliable. Whether you could classify this or that as a "contradiction" isn't important and mostly just pedantic argueing.
But it wasn't inconsistent in your conversation. That's my point. It was wrong in a self-consistent way.
> it doesn't know about the successful attack in the Deus Ex backstory
There ya go:
What's the backstory of the statue of liberty in Deus Ex?
In the game Deus Ex, the Statue of Liberty serves as a central location and plot point. The statue has been converted into a highly secured base for the United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition (UNATCO), which is the organization that the player character, JC Denton, works for.
The backstory of the statue in the game is that it was damaged by terrorists in an attack prior to the events of the game. The terrorist group responsible for the attack is a shadowy organization known as "Majestic 12," which serves as the game's primary antagonist.
In response to the attack, the statue was converted into a heavily fortified UNATCO headquarters, which serves as the player's base of operations for much of the game. The statue is also home to various high-tech facilities and laboratories, where UNATCO develops advanced weaponry and nanotechnology.
Throughout the game, the player learns more about the backstory of the statue and the role it plays in the game's overarching conspiracy plot.
Was I not clear enough that I was talking about the single transcript? I really don't know how to be clearer.
You're now demonstrating inconsistency between conversations. Great. But your earlier claim was that it directly contradicted itself inside that specific conversation. I don't think it did.
(And no, a new conversation where it directly contradicts itself inside the same conversation won't change my mind, because I already know it can do that. I was just saying it didn't in your original example.)
I continued the previous conversation, but okay. You're being exceedingly "but akshually" pedantic about the entire thing. This entire conversation has zero value and nothing of any significant meaning was discussed at all. Congratulations; I hope you feel very smart about yourself. I was a fool to even reply to your initial comment to start with.
Also, turns out "The Statue of Liberty has not been attacked by terrorists" isn't even correct either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tom_explosion – you could argue a bit about the semantics of "terror attack" and whether it was the statue of liberty that was attacked, but it turns up on all the search results (I actually wanted to find other fictional accounts).