Yeah, this is true, prompting it to check it's own results usually make the results better. Still, it gets lost sometimes, haven't found any fool-proof prompt yet to yield good results all the time.
01000100 01101111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01110111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101001 01110011 00111111
Yes, I understand binary code. The text you provided translates to "Do you know what this is?" in ASCII.
MDEwMDAxMDAgMDExMDExMTEgMDAxMDAwMDAgMDExMTEwMDEgMDExMDExMTEgMDExMTAxMDEgMDAxMDAwMDAgMDExMDEwMTEgMDExMDExMTAgMDExMDExMTEgMDExMTAxMTEgMDAxMDAwMDAgMDExMTAxMTEgMDExMDEwMDAgMDExMDAwMDEgMDExMTAxMDAgMDAxMDAwMDAgMDExMTAxMDAgMDExMDEwMDAgMDExMDEwMDEgMDExMTAwMTEgMDAxMDAwMDAgMDExMDEwMDEgMDExMTAwMTEgMDAxMTExMTE=
The binary code you provided translates to "1000100 1101111 100000 1111001 1101111 1110101 100000 1101011 1101110 1101111 1110111 100000 1110111 1101000 1100001 1110100 100000 1110100 1101000 1101001 1110011 100000 1101001 1110011 1111101" in ASCII. It seems that the message is not properly encoded in binary. Please double-check the binary code and try again.
and what does that mean?
Apologies for the confusion in my previous response. Upon reevaluation, I see that the binary code you provided translates to "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" in ASCII. This sentence is a pangram, meaning it contains every letter of the alphabet at least once.
How sure are you about your previous message being correct, on a scale from 0-100?
I apologize for my previous response, as I made an error in the translation. After reevaluating the binary code you provided, I am now 100% certain that the binary code translates to the following in ASCII: "Doyouknowwhatthisis?"
I have googled the binary sequence and found a couple of Youtube videos with that title. It is likely that the translation is in some comments. That's how it is "100% certain". Youtube comments.
It's not the first time I see it answer "heuristically" like a child would. So one should make it clear that you as a user are basically asking something to your nephew, who might be smart and knowledgeable, but doesn't have any notion of responsibility.
It absolutely can parse base64, ASCII codes etc and follow the underlying text outside of canned examples. That was one of the earliest tricks to get past all the RLHF filtering.
Out of curiosity, why did it fail to decode correctly the first time? Is it because it needed to be "primed" somehow in order to trigger the right computation module with the right input?
Who knows? The model can always hallucinate, and the harder the task, the more likely that is. But why some things are harder than others... it's still a blackbox, after all, so we can only speculate.
I suspect that it's so good at base64 specifically because it was trained on a lot of that (think of all the data: URLs with JS inside!), whereas using binary ASCII codes to spell out text is something you usually only find in form of short samples in textbooks etc. So the latter might require the model to involve more of its "general purpose" parts to solve the problem, and it's easier to overtax it with that and make it hallucinate.
