Our long national nightmare may be over - testing with seed 4, the guardrails seem back to being sane. It made it into the release notes as a bug which I take as a positive sign that it wasn't a policy thing. Phew.

For those watching, seed 4 seems much improved.

Check seed 4! Seems better. I'm still evaluating but promising.

I know someone will ask if I have filed Feedback. I have in the past and I will file a new one. That said, none of my Foundation Models feedbacks have any activity on them and I've filed about a dozen since June. Feels like a waste of my time.

Hi, No, it's not responding verbatim, sorry if unclear. It's responding with a single sentence saying some variation of "I cannot fulfill this request because..." like you see in the above post. It will give a reason but it sounds like you're saying that's likely hallucinated so perhaps just nonsense. But it's just a refusal, not the original article text returned back to me. I seem to see this most consistently on political stories but also strangely on tech stories (it will sometimes refuse to summarize any Apple related rumors which I'm sure is not intentional but pretty odd). I will post my FBs.

Actually, I didn't know about the acceptable use guidelines and I thought I had read all of the various documentation bits on Foundation Models so good to have that link for sure. Been busy the past few days but I will post the sample/FB, yes.

@DTS Engineer Here is an example feedback taken from Playgrounds. If whatever it captures+provides does not include what you are looking for let me know and I can add more to it. The session instructions are trying to adhere to requirements like the acceptable use doc linked. Trying to! FB19916776

Thanks for the engagement on this and I appreciate you taking a look.

Looking around, sounds like perhaps the 4096 also needs to hold tokens beyond the content? If correct, it would be nice to have this broken out better in the error or something similar because just reading this makes it sound like a framework bug.