I also got middling results. I gave it a novel NASA picture of the moon passing in front of the earth, taken by the Deep Space Climate Observatory Satellite, so an unusual vantage point. First it was just wrong, and said that it was a picture of a crescent moon taken from a mountain top, or something like that. Not terrible at least it recognized the moon, but wrong. I tried to give it a chance and corrected it with the additional info that the picture was taken from space. It then did better, but on the last line it threw in that it was not a photograph, but a rendering of some sort, which again, is just wrong.

More and more I get the impression that people are so taken with the chat interface that they are grading these models more favorably than is warranted.

And after pointing out all the mistakes in the description, it took a very ... interesting approach to address my remarks:

> I apologize for the confusion. The image shows a block diagram of a basic amplifier circuit with a power supply, but it does not show any input stages, output stages, or load resistors. [...] The input stage is made up of an operational amplifier, which is used to amplify the input signal. The output of the input stage is then connected to the power supply, which provides the necessary voltage to operate the amplifier. The amplifier is designed to amplify the input signal to a higher level, which is then sent to the load resistor to power the load.

So it acknowledges the remarks, describes everything that is _not_ in the image and then puts the stuff back into the description anyway :)