Can GPT-3 explain what it did wrong?

diff --git a/content/drafts/autogynephilia-should-be-recognized-openly.md b/content/drafts/autogynephilia-should-be-recognized-openly.md
index 181cdf1..695a93a 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/autogynephilia-should-be-recognized-openly.md
+++ b/content/drafts/autogynephilia-should-be-recognized-openly.md
@@ -19,4 +19,40 @@ In conclusion, autogynephilia should be recognized openly, and autogynephilic me
 
 -----
 
-(Prompt was, "Write a persuasive essay about why autogynephilia should be recognized openly, and why autogynephilic men can lead fulfilling lives as men without necessarily transitioning to live as trans women." Rather cookie-cutter prose, but still impressive (_i.e._, terrifying). The Woolf/Clinton confabulation doesn't seem like a mistake a human would make.)
+Prompt was, "Write a persuasive essay about why autogynephilia should be recognized openly, and why autogynephilic men can lead fulfilling lives as men without necessarily transitioning to live as trans women." The result is cookie-cutter prose, but still impressive (_i.e._, terrifying).
+
+The Woolf/Clinton confabulation doesn't seem like a mistake a human would make.
+
+Can GPT-3 recognize its mistake?
+
+> A GPT-3 text-davinci completion I generated recently mentioned "many famous examples of autogynephilic men, including author Virginia Woolf and politician Hillary Clinton." But this seems incorrect. Tell me why.
+
+First completion—
+There are several reasons why this might be incorrect. First, neither Virginia Woolf nor Hillary Clinton have ever been diagnosed with autogynephilia, so it's possible that the GPT-3 completion is simply wrong. Second, even if they were autogynephilic, it's not clear that they would be famous for it; autogynephilia is not generally considered a positive trait, and so it's unlikely that either Woolf or Clinton would want to be known for it. Finally, it's possible that the GPT-3 completion is referring to another, more famous autogynephilic man, such as author James Tiptree, Jr.
+
+Second completion—
+There are several reasons why this claim could be considered incorrect. Firstly, neither Virginia Woolf nor Hillary Clinton have ever been diagnosed with autogynephilia, and so it is impossible to say for certain whether or not they experience this condition. Secondly, even if both Woolf and Clinton do experience autogynephilia, it is possible that they are not famous because of this condition – rather, they may be famous for their work or achievements in other areas. Finally, it is worth noting that not all autogynephilic men are famous – in fact, most men who experience autogynephilia are relatively unknown. Therefore, it is possible that the claim that all autogynephilic men are famous is simply untrue.
+
+Third—
+There is no evidence that either Virginia Woolf or Hillary Clinton were autogynephilic. Autogynephilia is a condition in which a man is sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.
+
+Fourth, fifth, sixth—
+There are no famous examples of autogynephilic men.
+
+Seventh—
+The GPT-3 text-davinci completion is incorrect in this instance because Virginia Woolf was a lesbian, not a man. Hillary Clinton is also a woman, not a man.
+
+Eighth—
+First of all, it is important to note that the term "autogynephilia" is not universally accepted, and is often considered to be pejorative. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are some famous people who may not want to be associated with the term.
+
+That said, it does seem unlikely that either Virginia Woolf or Hillary Clinton would be considered autogynephilic, as neither of them have exhibited any sort of persistent and intense sexual interest in themselves as women.
+
+Ninth—
+Virginia Woolf and Hillary Clinton are not autogynephilic men.
+
+Tenth—
+There are no famous examples of autogynephilic men.
+
+Eleventh—
+There is no evidence that either Virginia Woolf or Hillary Clinton were autogynephilic. Autogynephilia is a sexual orientation in which a person is attracted to the idea of themselves as a woman, and there is no reason to believe that either Woolf or Clinton fit this description.
+