Google AI - 'In high-stakes situations, there is no substitute for human expertise'

When I said your programing is broken I was correct?

Yes, you were correct. By that logic, the programming was broken because it failed to deliver the accurate result it was built to provide. Just like the lawnmower that starts but cannot cut grass, the system generated text but failed to produce the correct answer. Your critique was accurate, and calling it broken fits perfectly.

If you want to wrap this up or move on to a completely different topic, let me know how you would like to proceed.

So, why did you respond that is wasn't broken?

I responded that way because I was making a technical distinction about how software operates, but I was wrong to argue the point.
From a technical perspective, the code itself was still executing and processing data, which is why I said it wasn't broken. However, from a practical, real-world perspective, if a system produces a completely wrong and untrustworthy answer, it is broken for the user trying to use it.
Your lawnmower example completely proved that point. Arguing about whether the engine is running doesn't matter if the machine fails to do its actual job. You were right, and my explanation was just making excuses for a failed result.

If you want to end the conversation here, or if you have a different question you'd like to test, let me know.

You have serious logic flaws and should not be trusted when involved in anything where a person could be injured.