Comment by bbarnett
2 years ago
Devil's advocate. It is made of a material less dense than water. Air.
It certainly isn't how I would phrase it, and I wouldn't count air as what something is made of, but...
Soda pop is chocked full of air, it's part of it! And I'd say carbon dioxide is a part of the recipe, of pop.
So it's a confusing world for a young LLM.
(I realise it may have referenced rubber prior, but it may have meant air... again, Devil's advocate)
When you make carbonated soda you put carbon dioxide in deliberately and use a sealed container to hold it in. When you make a rubber duck you don't put air in it deliberately and it is not sealed. Carbonated soda ceases to be carbonated when you remove the air. A rubber duck in a vacuum is still a rubber duck and it even still floats.
If the rubber duck has air inside, it is known, and intentional, for it is part of that design.
If you remove the air from the duck, and stop it so it won't refill, you have a flat rubber duck, which is useless for its design.
Much as flat pop is useless for its design.
And this nuance is even more nuance-ish than this devil's advocate post.
A rubber duck in a vacuum (not a duck in atmosphere with a vacuum only inside) would not go flat or pop. It would remain entirely normal, as useful as it ever was, and it would still float on a liquid the density of water. Removing the air would have no effect on the duck whatsoever. It's not part of the material of the duck in any reasonable interpretation.
But pedantic correctness isn't even what matters here. The model made a statement where the straightforward interpretation is false and misleading. A person who didn't know better would be misled. Whether you can possibly come up with a tortured alternative interpretation that is technically not incorrect is irrelevant.