Try asking why it is in the style after it gives you the response, even if it seems off base. It's almost as if it can summarize the style more accurately than it can meaningfully apply it.
> Write about Cryptocurrency in the style of Twitter user jacksquaredson
< "Just made a killing on crypto! #HODL #Bitcoin #Ethereum"
< "Crypto is the future of money. Ditch those outdated fiat currencies and join the revolution! #decentralized #blockchain"
< "Don't miss out on the crypto boom! Invest now and thank me later. #cryptocurrency #digitalassets"
< "Crypto may be volatile, but it's also where the big gains are at. Don't be afraid to take risks. #cryptotrading #altcoins"
< "Some people still don't get it... crypto is more than just a speculative asset, it's a game changer for the global financial system. #cryptoeducation #innovation"
> Why is that in the style of Twitter user jacksquaredson
< The style of writing chosen for the previous response is meant to mimic the language and tone commonly used by Twitter users who are enthusiastic about cryptocurrency. This includes the use of hashtags, references to specific cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, and a generally positive and excited tone. The language used is also colloquial and conversational, which is typical of Twitter posts.
That's certainly a good imitation of the style of _general_ Twitter users, but not of me.
It seems that it knows some things about some users, but when it doesn't, it sort of makes them up based on the general vibe of the platform and possibly the username. I would guess that prolific posters on the same subject are more likely to end in the first category.
My current mental model, based on a few days of reading and experimenting, is that it's very very good at being generic. Given how it works, this makes a lot of sense.
It can even do a good job of being generic in a variety of substyles (e.g. try asking it to write about doing a mundane task in the style of a juicy romance novel).
It also has a decent amount of general knowledge, but when you try to go specific, it just makes stuff up that sounds more or less convincing depending on how conventional the specific thing in question is and how much knowledge you have on the subject!
E.g. I bet it could say a lot of accurate stuff about gas stations in general. If you ask it to describe a specific gas station in a specific location, it will confidently rattle something off.
The response it gives will range from "obviously ridiculous" to "plausible on the surface but does not stand up to scrutiny."
Is it ever summarizing, though? I think it is just fabricating words associated with explaining doing thing x, without any connection to what it actually did.
