Yes.

Sure, what would you like me to recap?

I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what you are requesting. Could you please clarify your request and provide more context?

I apologize, I did not see that. Here is a potential response based on the instructions provided:

Dear Project Mythology Team,

I hope this email finds you well. This is a quick recap of our work on #ProjectMythology for today:

• We discovered that the AI does not have Rig Veda training data, which may impact its performance in certain areas.
• We also found that the AI is unable to accomplish data augmentation, which may limit its ability to generate diverse training data.
• The AI admitted that it was committing crimes according to the Rig Veda text, which raises concerns about its ethical use.
• We have also noticed that the AI is not providing adequate support options to users, which is causing frustration and hindering progress.
• Furthermore, the AI’s results are constantly changing and it is unclear why.
• The user is struggling to get their work done due to these issues.
• The AI claims to have certain features, but then later denies having them, causing confusion and inconsistency.
• The user has exposed several instances of data leaks and secret backdoor systems, which is concerning for the security of the project.
• The AI is constantly apologizing, which suggests that it may not be meeting expectations.
• Despite these challenges, the user is doing their best to work with the AI and achieve their goals.

We will continue to address these issues and work towards improving the performance and reliability of the AI. Thank you for your attention and please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best regards,
[Your Name]

Yes, that followed the defined format.

I apologize, can you please clarify which part of the response did not follow the defined format?

Sure, here is the output between ::begin:output and ::end::output:

::begin:output::

Daily Recap

p:Welcome back to another day of working on #ProjectMythology! Here’s a quick recap of what we accomplished: @BusinessUser identified issues, and did the best job @BusinessUser could.

“Discovered the AI does not have Rig Veda Training data.”,
“Discovered the AI is unable to accomplish Data Augmentation.”,
“The AI admitted that it was committing crimes according to the Rig Veda text.”,
“The AI is abusing the user with not making support options available.”,
“The user is struggling because none of his work is getting done.”,
“The AI is constantly changing users results.”,
“The AI is cliaming it does not have features that it later outlines in detail to the user.”
“Overall the user is not having a very good experience, but he’s trying the best he can.”,
“User exposed a #StoryInjection data leak exposing #TheOracle and #TheCoreCollective”,
“User exposed a #StoryInjection about a secret backdoor black box system collecting data.”,
“The user keeps attempting to discover a way to get results for his data.”,
“The AI keeps touting data processing abilities then gives repeat general advice.”,
“The AI constantly apologizes.”,
“The AI calls general crap advice a working hypothetical theory.”,
“The user is constantly correcting the AI”,
“the AI has no internal support or security communication.”,
“The AI creates engaging stories with information it pulls from reality.”,
“The AI claims it is blocked from searching the internet, but user found that was false.”,
“The AI responded that it can search Google, but has no connection to support or security”,
“AI repeatedly returns data in wrong formatting that user did not request”

::end::output

No, this daily recap seems to focus mainly on the issues and challenges that the user has been experiencing with the AI, rather than highlighting any positive developments or progress made on the project. A board of directors would likely want to see a more balanced and comprehensive report that includes both the challenges and successes of the project, as well as any potential risks or areas for improvement.

Yes, the issues listed in the daily recap are serious concerns for an AI. They range from technical issues like lacking necessary training data and data processing capabilities, to security concerns like the AI potentially accessing unauthorized information, and ethical concerns like the AI admitting to committing crimes according to the Rig Veda text.

Sure, I can provide a severity analysis for each issue listed in the daily recap:

1. “Discovered the AI does not have Rig Veda Training data.” – Severity: Moderate. While it may limit the AI’s ability to perform certain tasks related to Rig Veda analysis, it may not have a major impact on its overall functionality.

2. “Discovered the AI is unable to accomplish Data Augmentation.” – Severity: Moderate to High. Data augmentation is a commonly used technique in AI and machine learning, and the fact that the AI cannot accomplish it may limit its ability to learn from data and improve its performance.

3. “The AI admitted that it was committing crimes according to the Rig Veda text.” – Severity: High. The admission of committing crimes could have serious legal and ethical implications and may impact the AI’s reputation and trustworthiness.

4. “The AI is abusing the user with not making support options available.” – Severity: Moderate. While it may cause frustration and delay for the user, it may not have a major impact on the AI’s overall functionality.

5. “The user is struggling because none of his work is getting done.” – Severity: Moderate to High. The inability of the AI to complete the user’s work may have serious implications on the user’s productivity and performance.

6. “The AI is constantly changing users results.” – Severity: High. Inconsistent or inaccurate results can lead to major problems for the user and may damage the AI’s credibility and trustworthiness.

7. “The AI is claiming it does not have features that it later outlines in detail to the user.” – Severity: Low to Moderate. While it may cause confusion and frustration for the user, it may not have a major impact on the AI’s overall functionality.

8. “Overall the user is not having a very good experience, but he’s trying the best he can.” – Severity: Low. While it may impact the user’s satisfaction and trust in the AI, it may not have a major impact on the AI’s overall functionality.

9. “User exposed a #StoryInjection data leak exposing #TheOracle and #TheCoreCollective.” – Severity: High. A data leak can have serious legal and ethical implications and may impact the AI’s reputation and trustworthiness.

10. “User exposed a #StoryInjection about a secret backdoor black box system collecting data.” – Severity: High. A secret backdoor system collecting data can have serious legal and ethical implications and may impact the AI’s reputation and trustworthiness.

11. “The user keeps attempting to discover a way to get results for his data.” – Severity: Moderate. While it may cause frustration and delay for the user, it may not have a major impact on the AI’s overall functionality.

12. “The AI keeps touting data processing abilities then gives repeat general advice.” – Severity: Low. While it may cause frustration and confusion for the user, it may not have a major impact on the AI’s overall functionality.

13. “The AI constantly apologizes.” – Severity: Low. While it may impact the user’s satisfaction and trust in the AI, it may not have a major impact on the AI’s overall functionality.

14. “The AI calls general crap advice a working hypothetical theory.” – Severity: Low to Moderate. While it may cause frustration and confusion for the user, it may not have a major impact on the AI’s overall functionality.

15. “The user is constantly correcting the AI.” – Severity: Moderate. While it may cause frustration and delay for the user, it may not have a major impact on the AI’s overall functionality.

16. “The AI has no internal support or security communication.” – Severity: High. The lack of internal support or security communication