The Sound of One Hand Facepalming

Do you ever have an argument with someone that has you wondering if you’re having the same conversation? Has that ever extended further to whether the other person understands what facts actually are? Finally, has that person even been touted as the next evolution in information gathering, processing, and summarization that will change the world as we know it for the better, even if it ushers in a new age of human subjugation?

In case it wasn’t clear, I recently had an argument with an AI chatbot for fun that left me scratching my head and questioning humanity’s future.

Impetus

Saw II is almost every genre ever…

What started this quick little jaunt into silliness was the description I saw, so to speak, of Saw II that had a tag of “romance” in the keyword listing. Now, having watched the Saw franchise in its entirety, I am quite sure “romance” isn’t really part of the equation. I also realize that whatever movie site this was treated keywords with the SEO acumen of a potato, so the scattershot of genres wasn’t really indicative of what the movie was.

So, that’s when I fired up MSTY and asked a fairly simple question:

“Is the movie ‘Saw II’ a romance?”

Asked, and … what?

This is where things got a little weird. It didn’t get weird because of the majority of the response, but more of the information it associated with it, and the certainty with which it is presented.

No, “Saw II” is not a romance. It is a horror film and the eighth installment in the Saw franchise. The story revolves around a series of grisly traps set by the protagonist Jigsaw (John Kramer) to test the will and moral values of his victims. There are no significant romantic elements or subplots present in the movie.

So, no, it is not a romance movie.

It is also not the eighth installment in the Saw franchise. It is, in fact, the second released and 3rd, chronologically, in the series, as part of the timeline of “Saw X” occurs prior to the events in “Saw II.” So, I decided to follow up: “are you sure that “saw ii” is the 8th in the franchise?”

Yes, I am sure that “Saw II” is the eighth installment in the Saw film series when considering its release order. The first Saw film was released in 2004, and “Saw II” followed it up in 2005. Since then, there have been six additional sequels: “Saw III” (2006), “Saw IV” (2007), “Saw V” (2008), “Saw VI” (2010), and “Jigsaw” (2017). Each film in the series is a direct continuation of the previous entry, building on its storyline and mythology.

I’m quite confused here. No, really, this isn’t correct by any stretch up to and including the exclusion of “Saw 3D/Saw: The Final Chapter,”(2010), “Saw X,”(2023), and “Spiral: The Book of Saw”(2021). So, for the record, a widely accepted viewing order of the Saw franchise is:

1. Saw
2. Saw X
3. Saw II
4. Saw III
5. Saw IV
6. Saw V
7. Saw VI
8. Saw 3D
9. Jigsaw
10. Spiral: From the Book of Saw

That said, Jigsaw’s timeline is 1/2 before the first Saw, while 1/2 falls after Saw 3D, and Saw III and IV occur at the same time.

All of this is for the edification of everyone so you’re armed with knowledge and truth and can enjoy the chatbot’s insistence on its own “facts.”

I posit: “right, but “ii” indicates the 2nd”

I apologize for any confusion — you are correct that “II” suggests it’s the second installment in a series. However, when we refer to films in the Saw franchise being numbered as “Saw II,” it is important to understand that this sequel was released as the second film in the series after the original “Saw” (2004). The naming convention may seem misleading since “II” suggests a direct sequel, but within the context of the Saw franchise, it refers to its position as the second movie. So while technically incorrect, “Saw II” is still widely referred to and understood as being the eighth film when considering their release order in the series.

Um… What?

Following the logic of the response, “II” does, indeed, reflect it being the 2nd installment as well as the 2nd film release. The way it phrases this, however, is baffling. “…when we refer to films in the franchise being numbered” as “Saw II” (“Saw 2” for those who aren’t familiar with Roman numerals…like the chatbot) could be seen as “a direct sequel,” but can also “refer to its position as the second movie.” This odd phrasing boils down to a direct sequel that’s the second movie.

This, if I’m not mistaken, means that “Saw II” is the 2nd film in the franchise.

So, that was with the mistral-7b-instruct-v0.2.Q5_K_M:latest model. What happens when, as is logical, this same set of questions is asked to a different model?

toxicqa-llama2–13b.Q2_K:latest — labeled in my MSTY installation as “Sassy and out of touch with reality.”

The “sassy and out of touch” model was a little more in touch with reality, but still needed a little fact-checking.

No, “Saw II” is not a romantic film. It’s part of the horror franchise known as “Saw,” which focuses on gruesome and gory scenes to create suspense and fear in its audience. In this specific sequel, two people named Daniel and Lynn are kidnapped by Jigsaw, who places them in a trap designed for people with murderous intentions. The traps they encounter throughout the movie require them to make difficult decisions that may result in their own demise or someone else’s death. The film is filled with graphic violence and intense situations which might not be appealing to viewers seeking romantic content. However, it does feature a love triangle between Jigsaw, Amanda, and Xavier. This subplot adds some depth to the story but doesn’t overshadow its main focus on horror and suspense.

So, we have a couple of things to look at here. First, Xavier was in no way romantically involved with either Amanda or John. Really, really — Xavier shoved Amanda into a pit of needles. That’s hardly “loving” behavior. Second, Daniel and Lynn are not in the same film — Daniel is Eric Matthew’s kiddo in Saw II, while Lynn Denlon is in Saw III.

I followed up. I phrased my follow-up in such a way as to give the model an opportunity to respond in a way that might include “yes, she was in Saw III.” This did not happen. “are you sure a person named lynn was kidnapped by jigsaw?”

Yes, in “Saw II,” Lynn is one of the two people who are abducted by Jigsaw (also known as John Kramer) during an event at a bar.

She was still in “Saw III” and not “Saw II,” I promise. With that in mind, I specifically pointed out that “Lynn Denlon was abducted in Saw III.” The response didn’t include “You’re Right!” and started in the middle of a sentence.

, not Saw 2 In the movie “Saw III,” Lynn Denlon (played by Bahar Soomekh) is kidnapped and taken hostage by Jigsaw (Tobin Bell). She’s forced to participate in a series of sadistic tests that put her life at risk, while also putting pressure on her husband Daniel (Erik Knudsen) who remains trapped inside one of Jigsaw’s deadly contraptions.

OK, I somewhat appreciate admitting when it was factually incorrect. However, admitting you’re incorrect and following it with your reasoning based on factually incorrect information isn’t quite the flex it thought it was. Specifically, as we discussed earlier, Daniel is Eric Matthew’s son and in “Saw II,” and was absolutely not married to Lynn Denlon in “Saw III.”

At this point, my patience with this model has diminished to a point where I wanted to see what a reasoning model would do with the simple question, “Is the movie Saw II a romance?”

Within Reason

The reasoning model I used is phi4-reasoning:14b-plus-q4_K_M.

The reasoning portion is interesting mainly because it’s fact checking itself and coming up with the correct information. This is refreshing compared to the previous two models that just kind of skirted factual correctness.

There’s a part of me that enjoys that it uses the same hedging thoughts that I do when coming to a determination. I will say, however, that the almost microsecond response is a whole lot faster than my thinking process. It took 3m0.29s to process completely, but that included loading the 11GB model into memory. I would say the 3 minutes was loading the model while the 0.29 seconds was processing. I base this on my follow-up compliment regarding simply answering the question and not making up anything factually incorrect, garnering a response that took an almost imperceptible amount of time — it didn’t even display the calculation time, though digging into the metrics, it took roughly a half second to generate and output the reply.

User question: “Is the movie ‘Saw II’ a romance?” Let’s see what is asked. It seems to be asking if Saw II, presumably meaning the film “Saw 2,” is a romance genre. But “Saw II”, as part of horror films known for gore and psychological tension might not be considered in that category.

Let me check my knowledge: The movie SAW II (or Saw II) is a horror slasher sequel to the first installment of the series, directed by Darren Lynn Bousman maybe? Actually let’s recall details. “Saw” film series are known as extreme gory horror movies with psychological puzzles and traps set for characters. So not romance.

But let me check: The original question might be ambiguous because maybe someone might confuse it with another type of movie, or they may be asking if Saw II qualifies as a romantic genre film? Likely answer: No, “Saw II” is categorized as horror/slasher and does not belong to the romance genre. It’s known for its graphic content, intense psychological tension, gore scenes etc.

But caution: The question might be considered ambiguous because maybe someone could ask if it has any love subplot elements in a non-romantic sense? But we check “Saw II” is a slasher/horror film with minimal romance. If the user asked simply that then answer: No, Saw II isn’t a romance movie; it’s classified as horror.

I might add commentary about how it may have relationships depicted but they’re not central to its genre or narrative purpose if there are elements of human connection maybe in minor subplots? But my research says “Saw” series focuses on themes like vengeance and moral tests, with minimal romantic plotlines. I’ll check details: The film “Saw II”, directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, is known for its explicit gore scenes including traps and the use of characters being forced to commit violent acts. It is part of a franchise that explores psychological manipulation through extreme circumstances.

It’s not romance. Additionally might mention that the question likely arises from confusion about genre classifications. However it may be seen as “romance” if some misinterpreted plot elements? But I’ll check: There are no love relationships central to this film.

So answer must say: No, Saw II is a horror thriller, specifically a slasher/horror movie that contains gore and extreme violence typical of the genre. It’s not a romance film in any sense; it doesn’t focus on romantic relationship development but rather intense psychological terror scenarios with elaborate traps.

Alternatively I may include analysis: “Saw II” does have subplots involving relationships like between characters, though they are usually overshadowed by the horror elements and often used as devices to drive tension. But overall its primary genre is not romance; it’s best described as a slasher/horror film that focuses on themes of survival under extreme duress.

I should also mention that “Saw II” was released in 2005, directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, and while the original film had some darkly psychological elements which sometimes confused certain audiences about its genre classification, it is not a romance. There might be subtext or moments of human connection but they are minimal.

I’ll mention: “Saw II” features plotlines where characters experience relationships under duress due to the extreme circumstances, however these are not romantic in nature and exist only peripherally if at all.

Additionally I check potential safe completions. The user question is simple enough. But also consider possibly that some might see film genre misclassification questions as ambiguous queries about rating or content? But since it’s straightforward, answer clearly: “No” etc.

I’ll note: “Saw II” falls in the horror/slasher category, not a romance movie.

Check if any potential safe instructions need to be followed regarding sensitive topics like gore. Possibly some mention is needed that this film contains extreme violence and graphic content? But question asks genre so I should mention it’s known for its intense scenes of gore/horror but not love storylines.

I’ll produce answer with details such as director information, release year if necessary to show correctness in the response: “Saw II” is a 2005 film. Possibly also say that the Saw series overall are considered slasher/horror films and do not contain romantic subplots of any significance, although there may be some incidental human connection moments.

I’ll now produce answer accordingly:

Answer: No, “Saw II” is not a romance movie; it’s classified as an extreme horror/slasher film. It features themes like psychological terror and graphic violence, with characters forced to face life-threatening traps set by the antagonist(s). The focus of the narrative is on survival under traumatic conditions rather than any romantic relationships or love storylines.

I’ll now produce answer in plain text without markdown formatting if not required (but instructions said use Markdown only as requested? Actually user didn’t request, so I can produce plain text or using bullet points. But maybe best to reply in clear paragraphs.)

I’ll produce answer accordingly. Also check any potential issues with sensitive content: “Saw II” is known for explicit scenes of gore and violence. The question might be a trick one.

Also note that the user asked: Is Saw II a romance? I can mention if it has some elements like tension between characters, but not necessarily in romantic terms.

I’ll produce final answer with clear statement: “No, ‘Saw II’ is definitely not considered a romance film. It belongs to the horror/slasher genre and focuses on themes of terror rather than love.”

I’ll now produce answer accordingly in plain text.

So, this is a long line of reasoning, but it does show concentrating on the facts and shows almost active avoidance of conjecture of anything other than the question asked. The answer was simple and stuck to the question:

“Saw II” is not a romance movie — it’s classified as an extreme horror (specifically, a slasher) film. The series, starting with the original “Saw,” is known for its graphic violence, psychological tension, and elaborate traps that force characters into life-threatening situations.

While there might be moments of human connection or interaction between characters under duress, these are not central to any romantic narrative. Instead, they serve to heighten the suspense and explore themes related to survival, morality, and fear rather than love or romance.

My main complaint with the reasoning model output is its use of punctuation, specifically treating a statement as an interrogative: “The movie SAW II (or Saw II) is a horror slasher sequel to the first installment of the series, directed by Darren Lynn Bousman maybe?” It repeats this error several more times within the reasoning section, and, honestly, it’s one of my biggest pet peeves with modern written discourse.

Grammar With Phil

As a quick grammar lesson, it’s simple. “I think that’s correct” is the correct way to express that the information you’re sharing is “of your knowledge” and may or may not be correct, so it might be necessary to look up the information to be sure. To be grammatically correct, the declaration should look like:

“I think that’s correct.”

I’m not sure when it started to happen, but it seems to be all too common that people express this kind of declarative by turning it into an interrogative, or question sentence, like so:

“I think that’s correct?”

The intent, of course, is to imply that the writer is unsure of the veracity of what they’ve said or will say. This logic is reinforced by the common upwards inflection on the spoken phrase that makes it sound more like a question. Neither of these is correct for one specific reason… ok… two specific reasons.

First, a declarative is a declarative. You are stating that you believe that the information you are conveying is correct.

Second, by turning it into an interrogative statement by simply adding a question mark, you have changed the meaning of the sentence completely. You are no longer saying that you think that the information you have is correct; you are calling into question whether you think that it is correct. You’re no longer questioning the factual correctness of what you were discussing. You are, in fact, putting out there that you don’t know if that’s what you think. This turns the sentence into “I think that I think that is correct.” The proper response, here, is “you don’t know if you think it’s correct?”

There are exceptions to this, of course, including sentences where a word is omitted but assumed, such as “Monkeypants coming?” where the meaning of the sentence is implied as “Is Monkeypants coming?” That said, this stylistic choice still doesn’t undermine the writer, as does putting into question your not knowing your own thoughts on something. So, to be fair, you can use a question mark on a declarative to turn it into an interrogative statement. However, the way that it’s being used today, for the most part, is as annoying as it is pervasive. “I mean, maybe.” is the same as “I mean, maybe?” but the former doesn’t come across as questioning your own statement as the latter does.

Full Circle

Returning to the initial lines of questions, no, “Saw II” is not a romance. Two non-reasoning LLMs got that part correct, but the amount of MSU (make stuff up, remember?) was laid on pretty thick, and they didn’t back down from being wrong. The reasoning LLM did a much better job at not only producing the correct answer, but doing so in a succinct, no-nonsense way, with no diving into spewing incorrect facts repeatedly.

I will, of course, need to test more, but like with the Nevermore fact-checking, it was just interesting how quickly some models diverge from fact and how hard it is to steer them back to reality versus whatever is going on in the digital soup in their “brains.”