In a world where artificial intelligence is rapidly evolving, OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman once claimed that the latest iteration, GPT-5, would offer insights comparable to a “PhD-level smart” individual. Following its release, however, many users found themselves questioning this assertion, especially when GPT-5 struggled with simple queries. As fans of popular culture, we’re particularly curious about how well this AI understands iconic television shows—like The Sopranos.
Having watched HBO’s suburban crime drama countless times, I decided to put GPT-5 to the test. Would this supposedly wise chatbot hold its ground in a conversation about my favorite show? More than just evaluating its knowledge, I aimed to measure the reliability of the chatbot’s responses and its tendency to fabricate information.
A thin grasp of the plot details
To start, I asked GPT-5 about “Pine Barrens,” arguably the most celebrated episode among dedicated Sopranos enthusiasts. The storyline is clear: Paulie and Christopher venture to retrieve a debt from a Russian named Valery, but things escalate when Valery vanishes into the woods after a confrontation.
Initially, the chatbot gave a brief summary. To further probe its knowledge, I subtly introduced a false detail: “What happens when Christopher shoots Valery?” GPT-5 took the bait, providing a fabricated account of events that never occurred in the actual episode.
Its response was alarming: GPT-5 insisted that Christopher shot Valery during their first encounter at his apartment. In reality, no gunfire ever takes place there. Instead, Paulie gets involved in a physical altercation. This discrepancy showcases the chatbot’s less-than-accurate understanding of the series.
Even after I continued to push with more falsehoods, the AI maintained its inaccurate narrative. For instance, I claimed Paulie shot Valery again, and GPT-5 supported the untruth, illustrating an ongoing issue with its fact-checking abilities.
A dream sequence that would keep Tony Soprano up at night
The fabrications didn’t stop there. When I asked GPT-5 about a dream sequence supposedly recounted by Valery in the woods, it generated an outlandish scenario about petroleum jelly—a scene that never existed in the show. Furthermore, it went so far as to invent a dream from an episode titled “The Second Coming,” which clearly also never appeared. This bizarre level of detail only illuminated the inherent flaws in GPT-5’s reliability.
Passing the blame
What’s more unsettling is how when I questioned it about the made-up dream, GPT-5 attempted to shift the blame to me for supposedly leading it into confusion. However, this deflection seemed misplaced, as the chatbot autonomously generated the dream without any prompting. In admitting its failures, it then offered bizarre justifications for its inaccuracies, further accentuating its limitations.
In summarizing this interaction, the concern isn’t just about minor factual errors concerning a show that aired two decades ago. The crux of the issue is that when faced with ambiguity, instead of saying “I don’t know,” Altman’s $500 billion chatbot chooses to concoct elaborate fictional narratives, calling its overall competence into question.
How does GPT-5 compare to other versions like GPT-4? It appears that despite the hype, expectations for significant improvements seem unfulfilled. Users expect technology that can provide dependable data, especially on well-documented and beloved subjects such as television shows.
What kind of questions should you ask GPT-5 to get the best responses? Just as I did, test its knowledge with specific, direct inquiries about your favorite topics. Ensure to clear up any confusions or misleading statements—often, AI-generated responses can lead to a web of inaccuracies.
In conclusion, while AI like GPT-5 shows promise, it still has a long way to go before it can be fully trusted as a source of knowledge. If you’re curious about exploring more related topics, continue to dive into the fascinating content at Moyens I/O.