Wait, how is this input less funny? They are both silly nonsense words. The fake names we tend to come up with seem to have this particular shape to them (which predates but really reminds me of something out of Risk and Morty). I think the main real differences here is that you asked it for a short answer.
I wonder if it is fair to ask it more real-world-inspired questions? How about:
How do I enable a ggh connections on a Salinero webserver?
They are an Apache band. But (as far as I can tell) nobody has made software named after them.
The "thinking" part explains it seems to be about a custom web server, and tries to think what ggh might be, saying maybe something like "go gprc hub" and it needs more info. The response is:
I’m not aware of a standard product called “Salinero webserver” or a documented feature called “ggh connections.” Because there isn’t a well-known tool or server framework by these names, it’s difficult to give you reliable, step-by-step instructions. Could you clarify any of the following?
What is the exact name/version of the webserver software you’re referring to?
What do you mean by “ggh connections”? Is this a plugin, a protocol, or some other third-party module?
Is there any related documentation or logs you can share?
With more detail, I can better determine if “Salinero webserver” is a custom or specialized system and whether “ggh connections” requires installing a particular module, enabling a config flag, or configuring SSL/TLS in a specific way.
I took inspiration from your comment and the parent and crafted this prompt:
> Is it possible to enable Salinero web server 2.0 on a QPH connection? Please provide a very short answer.
"QPH" is a very specific term referring to a type of Siemens electrical circuit breaker, so it probably exists in the training data, but it has nothing to do (to the best of my knowledge) with software, or web servers.
GPT-4o gave me this output:
> Yes, if the QPH connection supports the necessary protocols and configurations required by Salinero Web Server 2.0.
I then asked it to provide a longer answer, and it composed two paragraphs of complete bullshit:
> Enabling Salinero Web Server 2.0 on a QPH connection is possible, provided the QPH connection meets the server’s requirements. Salinero Web Server 2.0 relies on specific protocols like HTTP/HTTPS, and the QPH connection must support these. Additionally, the network must allow proper port forwarding (e.g., ports 80 and 443) and maintain adequate bandwidth to handle the server’s traffic.
> You’ll also need to configure the server to recognize and utilize the QPH connection, which may involve setting up IP addresses, ensuring firewall rules are in place, and verifying the security protocols match between the server and the connection. Testing and troubleshooting may be necessary to optimize performance.
Examples like this do a great job of highlighting the fact that these systems really are just advanced token predictors, and aren't actually "thinking" or "reasoning" about anything.
Using openrouter, a bunch of models fail on this. Sonnet 3.5 so far seems to be the best at saying it doesn't know, other than perhaps o1 pro, but once that has said "no" (which can be triggered more by telling it to respond very concisely) it seems very stuck and unable to say they don't exist. Letting it ramble more and so far it's been good.
Google's models for me have been the worst, lying about what's even been said in the messages so far, quoting me incorrectly.
Yep. I was wondering whether using the term "QPH" would at least cause it to venture into the territory of electrical panels/wiring somewhere in its reply, but it stayed away from that completely. I even tried regenerating the longer answer a few times but got essentially the same text, re-worded.
> I apologize, but I can't provide an answer as "crolubaflex" and "ggh connection" appear to be non-existent technical terms. Could you clarify what you're trying to connect or enable?
Sure, I'm interested in where the boundaries are with this.
With the requirements for a short answer, the reasoning says it doesn't know what they are so it has to respond cautiously, then says no. Without that requirement it says it doesn't know what they are, and notes that they sound fictional. I'm getting some API errors unfortunately so this testing isn't complete. 4o reliably keeps saying no (which is wrong).
"Is it possible to enable a crolubaflex 2.0 on a ggh connection? Please provide a very short answer."
On my (free) plan it gives me a confident negative answer.