AI Chat 4.0: Genius 4+

Chat GPT4.o has been very good so far. Genius has answered questions from politics (without being biased), USA legislative policy focus recommendations for a better and healthier American future, to national and personal finance, retirement fund growth estimates and retirement financial needs calculations, general health topics, to specific medical diagnosis information to personal caloric and macronutrient and micronutrient prescriptions. It is always giving a cautious reminder that specific health prescriptions should be from personal medical providers. Of course, as I utilize Genius, I keep learning about how to better ask and be more specific with questions. I am sure there is a ton of other topics that I have not explored in my first week of Chat GPT 4.o use. There is so much more to explore with Genius!!!

I try as many as i can figure out how to carry [“GENIUS: AI Chat” is one] but I FAILED TO MAKE NOTES. So, which of these Chat ai programs is the best. At almost 80 years of age I definitely notice differences in quality. But which one was most satisfactory? I gave this one 5 stars for five stars worth of usefulness, and ease of use. However, there are several logos, like this white logo of green background and three white “electron orbits” that are stylized. My other two favorites showing displays of similar logos. MY POINT…when you have tried ‘em all, they begin to blend in my mind. I like them all enough to take a minute to rate them, but I don’t like them enough, nor do i find one to stand out above the others in dramatic style. I wish their logos were more discrete. I find them all fantastic. I think they reflect some fantastic capabilities. I wish the logos separated them more clearly in my mind’s eye. I find that they all will argue with you if you are inclined to dispute their infallibility. If you butter them up, they seem to like it.

I would encourage serious use of these include systemic note taking so you can keep you mind focused better than i did.

In the realm of artificial intelligence, the concept of an AI that fails to perform its intended functions, despite being provided with an unlimited number of prompts, raises a critical question about the very essence of its utility.

This scenario underscores the paradox of an AI system that, despite its vast potential and the seemingly endless resources at its disposal, remains incapable of achieving its objectives. It highlights the disconnect between the theoretical capabilities of AI technology and its practical application, suggesting that the mere quantity of prompts is not sufficient to overcome the inherent limitations of the AI's design or the complexity of the tasks it is expected to perform. This critique points towards a deeper issue within the AI development process, where the focus on quantity of prompts overlooks the quality of the prompts themselves and the sophistication of the AI's learning algorithms. It challenges the conventional wisdom that more prompts equate to better performance, prompting a reevaluation of the criteria for evaluating AI effectiveness. This review of an AI that fails to deliver, despite an abundance of prompts, serves as a reminder of the importance of not just the quantity but also the quality of the data fed into AI systems, and the necessity of continually refining AI algorithms to enhance their ability to learn and adapt to complex tasks.