No, it didn’t. Neither the first prompt you posted, nor the supposedly corrected second prompt provided the correct answer, and furthermore by the ‘reasoning’ provided by your chatbot indicated that it didn’t actually comprehend anything and was just producing grammatically and syntactically correct gibberish. Even the GPT-4 response that @Sam_Stone later provided which at least got the basic logic of the problem correct completely flubbed the basic procedure of rounting, indicating that it still didn’t ‘understand’ what it was doing and was just following a stochastic process of answering this question in a form similar to the text it was trained on.
The post you responded to was in Factual Questions. If you don’t want or aren’t able to do basic fact checking on your own response sufficient that you have confidence that the answer is factually correct, why they fuck are you responding? What value do you think you are bringing by posting a blurb generated by a chatbot that you don’t even have the knowledge to fact-check? And this is the fundamental problem with using such completely unvalidated AI, is it produces a confidently wrong result, you cut & paste the result in as ‘your’ answer (in essence, plagiarizing the work from a source that nobody can even check), and the fact that the ‘logic’ the chatbot used to provide the result is nonsense isn’t even apparent so then other people start propagating the error without recognizing that it comes from an untrustworthy agent. It’s a completely pointless exercise in anti-thought, a diminishment of critical thinking, a reflexive acceptance in just letting a ‘bot do the ‘hard work’ of ‘understanding’ the problem that you don’t want to crack a book or crank through a simple one line formula to work through.
Stranger