When questioned, chatgpt doubles down on how it is definitely correct.
But it's not relying on some weird glitchy interpretation of the art itself, a la adversarial turtle-gun. It just reports the drawing as definitely being of the word "lies" because that kind of self-consistency is what would happen in the kind of human-human conversations in its internet training data. I tested this by starting a brand new chat and then asking it what the art from the previous chat said.
Google's bard, on the other hand, interprets it differently
Bard has the same tendency to generate illegible ASCII art and then praise its legibility, except in its case, all its art is cows.
Not to be outdone, bing chat (GPT-4) will also praise its own ASCII art - once you get it to admit it even can generate and rate ASCII art. For the "balanced" and "precise" versions I had to make my request all fancy and quantitative.
With Bing chat I wasn't able to ask it to read its own ASCII art because it strips out all the formatting and is therefore illegible - oh wait, no, even the "precise" version tries to read it anyways.
These language models are so unmoored from the truth that it's astonishing that people are marketing them as search engines.
More at AI Weirdness
