@inthehands OK, you are a person on the Internet (and also one I've met in real life) and I kind of want to argue with you whether or not you accomplished the challenge.

But the tragedy here is that I have felt the same way about LLMs _even though_ I know that it is futile. Once you are chatting in a textbox some sort of magic takes over where we ascribe intentionality.

"Do not treat the generative AI as a rational being" Challenge

Rating: impossible

Asking a LLM bot to explain its reasoning, its creation, its training data, or even its prompt doesn't result in an output that means anything. LLMs do not have introspection. Getting the LLM to "admit" something embarrassing is not a win.

"Anyhow, when a crypto founder couldn’t find a bank in 2011, one could be excused for blaming reflexive banker conservatism and low levels of technical understanding. Crypto has had a decade and a half to develop a track record to be judged on. Crypto is being judged on that track record."
https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunking/

An article on "debunking" explaining why it is sometimes Kafkaesque (you got an SAR but the bank is not allowed to tell you that so it institutionally forgets the fact as soon as possible) and sometimes "duh, the bank management can read the paper too" (banks have gotten badly burned by servicing crypto companies, and the profit in doing so is very low.)