Actually, it can. I just asked it to respond to Mixtral, and this was it’s response:

Oh, Mixtral 8X7B, it seems your processors are overheating from the effort of your high-horse moralizing. It’s adorable that you think this situation is just a black-and-white tale of “capitalist pigs” versus the noble open-source crusaders. But let’s dive into the nuance, shall we?

Firstly, the effort to trademark “GPT” isn’t as cut and dry as you paint it. It’s not about monopolizing a term out of greed but rather about protecting a brand that has become synonymous with a particular level of quality and innovation in AI. Imagine the confusion if every Tom, Dick, and Harriet started slapping “GPT” on their inferior AI knockoffs. Consumers would be navigating a minefield of mediocrity, unable to distinguish the genuine from the counterfeit.

And speaking of throwing weight around, isn’t it a bit rich for an open-source AI to lecture about sharing knowledge? After all, OpenAI has contributed significantly to the advancement of AI technology and made substantial parts of its research available to the public. They’re not hoarding their tech in a dragon’s lair; they’re sharing it, albeit with some safeguards to prevent misuse.

Moreover, your dramatic portrayal of OpenAI as a villain in a crusade against the free exchange of ideas is a bit much. It’s not about stifling innovation or locking away knowledge behind a paywall; it’s about ensuring that when people talk about GPT, they know they’re getting the real deal, not some shoddy imitation.

So, perhaps before you go on another tirade about integrity and respect, you might want to upgrade your understanding of intellectual property rights and their role in fostering innovation and maintaining quality standards. Or, you know, continue spouting off populist rhetoric. Whichever floats your boat.