JustinCEO Topic

Ooof, that’s a really bad one given how many people have that particular misunderstanding.

I asked it that question more than one time in more than one way. It usually gave the correct answer, but occasionally gave the wrong answer. There isn’t any way to tell the difference between when it is getting info wrong, besides just looking it up yourself (or already knowing the answer). It doesn’t give any “tells” (that I could notice) when it is just making stuff up.

I think this makes ChatGPT is unreliable for anything where it is giving you data.

1 Like

You’ve convinced me :+1:

Actually @qwerty , were you using 3.5 or 4? I’ve noticed a huge quality difference between the two

I am using 3.5. Are you using the paid version to get 4?

Yeah I’m using the paid version.

So do you think that 4 doesn’t make those same kinds of mistakes?

Also, I haven’t used 4, so I’m wondering: is it able to provide sources and links for the information it gives? I know that 3.5 will provide inaccurate links, but not sure if 4 can do better since I think it can actually search the current internet.

Way way fewer of them, at least. I had some egregious examples of mistakes but a pro-ChatGPT friend pointed out they were all from 3.5, and I re-ran them in 4 and got the right answers.

I’ve still noticed the occasional odd error from 4 (like it telling me that -8 was greater than -4) but overall it seems waay more accurate and useful.

I just asked it to give me a link and it wouldn’t, but I tried one of the google search suggestions it provided and found a source.

Here’s a short conversation I just had with 4. Let me know if there’s anything specific you want me to try and I can share it here HSA Contribution Deadline - A ShareGPT conversation

AFAIK version 4 still has a 2021 knowledge cut off, could be wrong though. What I’ve done occasionally is fed it updated info in the conversation window and asked it to re-analyze based on that

Some questions/thoughts about Atlas Shrugged quotes:

Rearden/Lillian scene:

He remembered the day when Lillian came from New York to his office, of her own sudden choice, and asked him to take her through his mills. He heard a soft, low, breathless tone—the tone of admiration—growing in her voice, as she questioned him about his work and looked at the place around her. He looked at her graceful figure moving against the bursts of furnace flame, and at the light swift steps of her high heels stumbling through drifts of slag, as she walked resolutely by his side. The look in her eyes, when she watched a heat of steel being poured, was like his own feeling for it made visible to him. When her eyes moved up to his face, he saw the same look, but intensified to a degree that seemed to make her helpless and silent. It was at dinner, that evening, that he asked her to marry him.

Was Lillian just faking here, or is something else going on? The last sentence of the previous paragraph before this one was:

Lillian seemed to fit the image he had not known he held, had not known he wished to find; he saw the grace, the pride, the purity; the rest was in himself; he did not know that he was looking at a reflection.

The last sentence might be a hint that paragraph I’m asking about involved Hank reading things into Lillian that weren’t there, but I am not sure.

Francisco/Dagny scene:

Francisco d’Anconia sat in front of her desk. His face was blank. It had remained blank while Dagny explained to him, in the clear, impersonal tone of a business interview, the formation and purpose of her own railroad company. He had listened. He had not pronounced a word.

She had never seen his face wear that look of drained passivity. There was no mockery, no amusement, no antagonism; it was as if he did not belong in these particular moments of existence and could not be reached. Yet his eyes looked at her attentively; they seemed to see more than she could suspect; they made her think of one-way glass; they let all light rays in, but none out.

I wondered if the reference to letting light rays in but not out was a very subtle reference to future plot stuff or just a colorful description.

Rearden scene:

The thought of the John Galt Line ran through his mind like a harmony under the confident sound of his words. The John Galt Line was moving forward. The attacks on his Metal had ceased. He felt as if, miles apart across the country, he and Dagny Taggart now stood in empty space, their way cleared, free to finish the job. They’ll leave us alone to do it, he thought. The words were like a battle hymn in his mind: They’ll leave us alone.

There’s actually a bit of parallelism between this scene and the very end of the book (quoted below). Rearden has something “like a harmony” and at the end of the book there’s an actual symphony:

The music of Richard Halley’s Fifth Concerto streamed from his keyboard, past the glass of the window, and spread through the air, over the lights of the valley. It was a symphony of triumph. The notes flowed up, they spoke of rising and they were the rising itself, they were the essence and the form of upward motion, they seemed to embody every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive. It was a sunburst of sound, breaking out of hiding and spreading open. It had the freedom of release and the tension of purpose. It swept space clean and left nothing but the joy of an unobstructed effort. Only a faint echo within the sounds spoke of that from which the music had escaped, but spoke in laughing astonishment at the discovery that there was no ugliness or pain, and there never had had to be. It was the song of an immense deliverance.

And then there’s a reference to emptiness/void/darkness around them, and the way being clear (of course, Rearden’s thinking the way was clear for him earlier in the book was wrong):

The faint glitter of light weaving slowly through space, on the highest accessible ledge of a mountain, was the starlight on the strands of Galt’s hair. He stood looking, not at the valley below, but at the darkness of the world beyond its walls. Dagny’s hand rested on his shoulder, and the wind blew her hair to blend with his. She knew why he had wanted to walk through the mountains tonight and what he had stopped to consider. She knew what words were his to speak and that she would be first to hear them.

They could not see the world beyond the mountains, there was only a void of darkness and rock, but the darkness was hiding the ruins of a continent: the roofless homes, the rusting tractors, the lightless streets, the abandoned rail. But far in the distance, on the edge of the earth, a small flame was waving in the wind, the defiantly stubborn flame of Wyatt’s Torch, twisting, being torn and regaining its hold, not to be uprooted or extinguished. It seemed to be calling and waiting for the words John Galt was now to pronounce.

“The road is cleared,” said Galt. “We are going back to the world.”

She had a stronger reaction looking at him than looking at the mills. She’s more interested in people than steel.

Her life’s work/goal was to control Hank. [edit: according to the book / as Ayn Rand intended it]

1 Like

Atlas Shrugged

“Darling,” said Lillian Rearden to her husband, “I fought for you yesterday, at a tea where the women were saying that Dagny Taggart is your mistress. . . . Oh, for heaven’s sake, don’t look at me like that! I know it’s preposterous and I gave them hell for it. It’s just that those silly bitches can’t imagine any other reason why a woman would take such a stand against everybody for the sake of your Metal. Of course, I know better than that. I know that the Taggart woman is perfectly sexless and doesn’t give a damn about you—and, darling, I know that if you ever had the courage for anything of the sort, which you haven’t, you wouldn’t go for an adding machine in tailored suits, you’d go for some blond, feminine chorus girl who—oh, but Henry, I’m only joking!—don’t look at me like that!”

Lillian’s obviously not just “joking” but I don’t fully understand what’s going on here. Is she just generalizing about what all men want in terms of a woman and applying that to Hank? Is that meant as an attack (to say he’s no better than all the other guys). She’s said some stuff along those lines already I think, but I wasn’t 100% sure. Her comment seemed so wrong and obviously false that it struck me as weird.

I noticed some other interesting stuff in this passage:

  1. Lillian says she “fought” for Hank, but that can’t be right if she has so low a view of him that she thinks he’d prefer some random bimbo to Dagny Taggart.
  2. She says Dagny is “perfectly sexless” but we already know by this point that that is false. I think it’s Lillian’s honest opinion at this point though (see also “adding machine” comment), so it’s interesting that she’s so wrong about that.
  3. Lillian characterizes cheating as courage … to her husband!

Oh and also…Lillian characterizes her own friends (or social circle, or whatever) as “silly bitches”. So she voluntarily spends time with people she has contempt for. (That is very consistent with Lillian’s character, but I still think it’s interesting to note).

1 Like

Lillian herself is pretty sexless. [edit: according to the book / as Ayn Rand intended it]

1 Like

Yeah. She also says Dagny doesn’t give a damn about Rearden, which is 1) false, 2) more true of Lillian (Lillian doesn’t care about Hank’s happiness or well-being. She cares about controlling him)

I think the passage you quoted is at least partly related to Ayn Rand’s bad ideas about romance (which she wrote into the book as a major theme on purpose). It was in a chapter about Dagny’s romance and relationship with Francisco. So I’m not sure if there is actually a good interpretation of it, or if it is just Rand writing her own fantasies into the book, which is how I take most of that chapter.

I think this may be partly a call back to the earlier chapter about Dagny and Francisco. In that chapter, when asked about Francisco and Dagny, Dagny’s mother says:

“Dagny and Francisco d‘Anconia?” she said, smiling ruefully, in answer to the curiosity of her friends. “Oh no, it’s not a romance. It’s an international industrial cartel of some kind. That’s all they seem to care about.”

It is the same kind of sentiment.

I think this is more stuff about Rand’s own romance fantasies, and I don’t know how useful it is to consider it seriously. IMO, her romance ideas are really bad – they were bad in her own life too – but she basically tried to justify them as rational and good. It reminds me of how Sarah Fitz-Claridge has talked about her romance ideas, with ARR and now with the pro-monogamy stuff. She isn’t content to just do the kind of romance stuff she wants to do, she needs to to be rational. She needs to make arguments that actually the type of romance she likes is super good and important and necessary for the best kind of knowledge-creation.

I think that Rand is doing basically the same things with her books. So I would be wary of the kind of effort you are putting into interpreting those parts. You might want to look at them more critically, instead of trying to find the truth or value in them.

Not sure why you introduced the term “bimbo” here. The original did use “chorus girl”, I assume in a pejorative way. So I think maybe you were translating to a more current term instead. But the way that you wrote it sounds like you agree with using the term in that way, instead of like you are just quoting Rand’s negative judgment. I would argue that her use of “chorus girl” is another problematic thing related to her bad romance ideas.

E.g., one interpretation is that she thinks that men who are attracted to someone else instead of her are basically just attracted to dumb, pretty girls, and if they were rational, good people, they would be attracted to her instead, since she is the objectively better person. And the dumb, pretty girls suck, thus her having Lillian describe them in pejorative terms. She has some amount of disdain for any woman she sees as below her like that, and also for any man who would be attracted to a woman she sees as below her.

There is also other stuff in the book about how you are supposed to be attracted to the objectively best/smartest person, with Dagny dropping both Francisco and Rearden for Galt. That is something Rand wanted & did in her own life, both for men to do for her, and also for her to be able to do to her current partner for someone else. This is also related to the stuff she wrote about Rearden cheating on Lillian. She seems to think him cheating on his wife is OK (since his wife sucks AND the person he is cheating with is objectively better). That seems like more stuff trying to justify her own romantic life.

Note: I haven’t actually read the book in a while, and my interpretations here are mostly off the top of my head and not based on a recent close reading.

Was trying to partly modernize and partly make more generic. Like, I didn’t think Lillian was talking about chorus girls per se. Chorus girl is a job. A particular chorus girl might or might not fit the type of person I think she was trying to get at.

I also guess I do have a negative judgment about bimbos. Like, I think it’s a bad thing to be (as a girl), and I think it’s a bad thing to want for a partner (as a man). It says something about your character if you’re attracted to that type. And I think Hank is better than to want a bimbo, and Lillian is attacking him as being on the same level as all the other men (which is a theme of hers, trying to tear him down). And he reacts negatively, which is understandable and appropriate.

So you’re saying that maybe Rand defined the sphere of “chorus girls” and equivalent to basically be the women who were not her, and Lillian was acting as Rand’s mouthpiece here? Interesting, I’ll have to think about that.

Lillian was exceptionally cruel/mean towards Hank on an ongoing basis. If Rand wrote her as a normal wife or even a kinda crappy wife, I don’t think Rearden would cheat on her. Also, Rearden is pretty torn up about breaking his word for a while. So I don’t know that I agree with “She seems to think him cheating on his wife is OK (since his wife sucks AND the person he is cheating with is objectively better).” I think Lillian REALLY REALLY sucks. She’s EXCEPTIONALLY bad. What I could see arguing is maybe Rand wrote it that way in order to rationalize stuff in different, less extreme circumstances that she was biased about, or something (though I don’t know a ton of details about her IRL relationship stuff and there’s a ton of anti-Rand hate and rumors out there so IDK). But as written, Lillian’s quite awful and nowhere near the line of making a reasonable effort to have a decent marriage.