HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
giuven95
chatgpt-failures
Python2023–2023
giuven95 / chatgpt-failures

chatgpt-failures

Failure archive for ChatGPT and similar models

5Distinct people
5Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
596GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Failure archive for ChatGPT and similar models

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week5 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2023-01-04 16:09:59 UTC to 2023-03-21 14:29:14 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

012023-01-02 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-09 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsJan 22023-01-09 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-16 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-16 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-23 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-23 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-30 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-01-30 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-02-06 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-02-06 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-02-13 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsFeb 62023-02-13 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-02-20 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-02-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-02-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-02-27 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-03-06 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-03-06 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-03-13 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-03-13 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-03-20 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-03-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-03-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsMar 20

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jan 22023-01-02 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-09 00:00:00 UTC110
Jan 92023-01-09 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-16 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 162023-01-16 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-23 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 232023-01-23 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-30 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 302023-01-30 00:00:00 UTC2023-02-06 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 62023-02-06 00:00:00 UTC2023-02-13 00:00:00 UTC101
Feb 132023-02-13 00:00:00 UTC2023-02-20 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 202023-02-20 00:00:00 UTC2023-02-27 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 272023-02-27 00:00:00 UTC2023-03-06 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 62023-03-06 00:00:00 UTC2023-03-13 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 132023-03-13 00:00:00 UTC2023-03-20 00:00:00 UTC101
Mar 202023-03-20 00:00:00 UTC2023-03-27 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

5 sources
Related / fun : https://emaggiori.com/chatgpt-fails/ (I don't know the author or the book.) https://github.com/giuven95/chatgpt-failures "Plausible explanations Lack of a world model Models like ChatGPT do not have a "world model" in the sense that they do not have a comprehensive understanding of the physical and social world, and they do not have the ability to reason about the relationships between different concepts and entities. They are only able to generate text based on patterns they have learned from the training data."
In OpenAI Research Says 80% of U.S. Workers' Jobs Will Be Impacted by GPT
Several thoughts: * It's not a contradiction. ChatGPT replies using the words "doesn't typically include [additional information]", and including the current date could be an example of atypically included information. In the context of the conversation, there is no contradiction. * There is too much text between your question and the original prompt, so it cannot recall the prompt accurately. The working buffer on ChatGPT is rather short. I repeating your line of questioning on a new chat, and it is able to describe the prompt correctly. https://i.imgur.com/4zu9HRj.png * OpenAI doesn't want people reverse-engineering the prompt. Asking questions about the prompt can cause weird behavior. * It's easy to make ChatGPT generate nonsense, contradictions, and other hallucinated facts. Understand ChatGPT is a text generation engine, not a logic
Read the rest
machine. There is little purpose in debating it. I think you have too high expectations of what ChatGPT can do. Have a look at this list of ChatGPT failures, and you'll see ChatGPT is confidently dumb. https://github.com/giuven95/chatgpt-failures
In ChatGPT lied to me and then tried to deny it
Asked ChatGPT: "George's mother has 4 children: John, Mary, and Tom. What is the name of the fourth child?", they answered: "The fourth child's name is not given in the information provided." and even, after rephrasing, "The name of the third child is not given in the statement 'George's mom has 3 children: John and Mary.' So, it's impossible to say what is the name of the 3rd child." Not sure whose skillset is being threatened, 5-year-olds? https://github.com/giuven95/chatgpt-failures has more failures, some were fixed, laughed a bit at: me: "write a sentence ending with the letter s" ChatGPT: "The cat's fur was as soft as a feather."
In Diff Models – A New Way to Edit Code

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.