In 30 seconds
Matthew Berman shows two ChatGPT responses to a question about a seahorse emoji. The responses cycle through corrections, and one continues generating before eventually presenting a fish as its answer.
- 1A simple questionBerman asks whether a seahorse emoji exists. The response says yes but repeatedly revises its proposed answer.
- 2A longer loopA second example runs for a long time and stops; Berman selects continue generating.
- 3An incorrect final answerThe displayed final answer labels a fish as a seahorse.
Takeaways
- The displayed response repeatedly proposes and retracts emoji as a seahorse.
- A second response continues for a long time and requires a request to continue generating.
- The example illustrates an inconsistent answer, not a systematic assessment of ChatGPT.
Read the edited text by chapter
The seahorse question
Berman shows a response that repeatedly corrects itself after being asked about a seahorse emoji. It never settles cleanly on an answer.

I think I just broke ChatGPT’s brain. I asked whether there is a seahorse emoji, and it said yes before listing emojis and repeatedly correcting itself: “Wait, no,” then “hold on,” then another supposedly final answer. It just keeps going.
A longer response
Another example keeps generating through a long series of corrections. Its displayed final answer calls a fish a seahorse.

That was actually one of the tamer examples. Another response went on for so long that it stopped while still working through the question. I hit “continue generating,” and it carried on in the same confused fashion. Its final answer identifies an emoji as a seahorse, but it is a fish. Did we just break ChatGPT?

More from this channel
34:21EN
25:50EN
32:20EN
1:03:37EN
0:53EN
0:22EN