Not so impossible according to AI, pretty impressive programming. I wonder if it calculates all of the supporting points/views before its answer, or only after you probe it for more explanation.
Alas, I was not the Alex that made the suggestion, but kudos to my counterpart. This brings back fond memories of arguably my favourite test I've ever taken, largely because I relish logic problems, and not in small part because it was done while drinking wine with a cheese and jamón platter.
However, I'd have to agree that the last question could benefit from reworking. Opportunism is purely acting for one's own benefit by seizing an opportunity when it arises. While it usually includes an element of surprise or randomness, and perhaps some guile and moral flexibility, it does not strictly preclude working for that benefit, as work is just another word for consistently taking action. Elaborate schemes to realise a self-benefiting opportunity could easily be considered work.
Hence my answer would be A, C and D, however D is subjective, not for the reasons outlined above (although I see the merit), but because you would have to prove that underperforming would have to equate with destructive. It would not make sense to remove a team member that is doing some work, but just not as much as everyone else, since removing them would create more work, not less. So if they could be replaced with a well-performing team member, or their removal in some way meant a significantly better grade/outcome that offset the loss of productivity, then I agree with ChatGPT that it becomes opportunistic, albeit for different reasons.
I would therefore also argue that B is incorrect, because shirking responsibilities only optimises a specific type of outcome - not doing work in the short-term. However I am of the view (and have the experience) that shirking responsibilities generally correlates with a net loss because responsibilities are usually important activities that are in some way beneficial to the doer, even if only in that they help avoid negative consequences.
Similarly I'd argue F is not correct, although perhaps very slightly debatable, because withholding cooperation from a team project is not the same as not contributing to a team project. It is more an action similar to running interference. It would most likely create inefficiencies that would make the whole less effective than the sum of the parts or even of the remaining parts. Assuming reasonably competent team members, opportunism would be just not contributing. The team will carry you to a decent grade and you'll get to slack off entirely. By this logic, F is not an example of opportunism, unless you're in a situation whereby you can ensure personal success by dragging down the group. An example would be if you're in a group with fellow students and you're all competing for the top spot in class, but they require success on a minor group project whereas you do not because you've already aced Rolf's exam ;) There'd have to be some additional factors here but you get the idea.
Hehehe, this was fun. Also a fantastic exploration of ChatGPT's capabilities. Thanks Rolf!
ps: the only consistent definitions for opportunism I can find quickly are that it requires seeking personal benefit without concern over the consequences for anyone else - but nothing says the consequences have to be negative. It is primarily a selfish action, not a nefarious one.
I have to admit that this time I agree with ChatGPT; "d) Colluding with others to remove an under-performing team member" is in my view an opportunistic behaviour."
Even if well intended and also for the greater/group good, d) is an action that takes advantage of an opportunity in detriment of an indiviual/group. So as you say maybe the question should be reformulated
The whole exercise you have done is mesmerizing and shows that the value of ChatGPT (and alikes) comes from asking the right questions!
Not so impossible according to AI, pretty impressive programming. I wonder if it calculates all of the supporting points/views before its answer, or only after you probe it for more explanation.
Alas, I was not the Alex that made the suggestion, but kudos to my counterpart. This brings back fond memories of arguably my favourite test I've ever taken, largely because I relish logic problems, and not in small part because it was done while drinking wine with a cheese and jamón platter.
However, I'd have to agree that the last question could benefit from reworking. Opportunism is purely acting for one's own benefit by seizing an opportunity when it arises. While it usually includes an element of surprise or randomness, and perhaps some guile and moral flexibility, it does not strictly preclude working for that benefit, as work is just another word for consistently taking action. Elaborate schemes to realise a self-benefiting opportunity could easily be considered work.
Hence my answer would be A, C and D, however D is subjective, not for the reasons outlined above (although I see the merit), but because you would have to prove that underperforming would have to equate with destructive. It would not make sense to remove a team member that is doing some work, but just not as much as everyone else, since removing them would create more work, not less. So if they could be replaced with a well-performing team member, or their removal in some way meant a significantly better grade/outcome that offset the loss of productivity, then I agree with ChatGPT that it becomes opportunistic, albeit for different reasons.
I would therefore also argue that B is incorrect, because shirking responsibilities only optimises a specific type of outcome - not doing work in the short-term. However I am of the view (and have the experience) that shirking responsibilities generally correlates with a net loss because responsibilities are usually important activities that are in some way beneficial to the doer, even if only in that they help avoid negative consequences.
Similarly I'd argue F is not correct, although perhaps very slightly debatable, because withholding cooperation from a team project is not the same as not contributing to a team project. It is more an action similar to running interference. It would most likely create inefficiencies that would make the whole less effective than the sum of the parts or even of the remaining parts. Assuming reasonably competent team members, opportunism would be just not contributing. The team will carry you to a decent grade and you'll get to slack off entirely. By this logic, F is not an example of opportunism, unless you're in a situation whereby you can ensure personal success by dragging down the group. An example would be if you're in a group with fellow students and you're all competing for the top spot in class, but they require success on a minor group project whereas you do not because you've already aced Rolf's exam ;) There'd have to be some additional factors here but you get the idea.
Hehehe, this was fun. Also a fantastic exploration of ChatGPT's capabilities. Thanks Rolf!
ps: the only consistent definitions for opportunism I can find quickly are that it requires seeking personal benefit without concern over the consequences for anyone else - but nothing says the consequences have to be negative. It is primarily a selfish action, not a nefarious one.
Wow! I took this test at IE MBA and ChatGPT would have given me a better grade for sure!
As someone who uses Chat GPT regularly and has taken this test, this was a fun read!
This is super impressive.
I have to admit that this time I agree with ChatGPT; "d) Colluding with others to remove an under-performing team member" is in my view an opportunistic behaviour."
Even if well intended and also for the greater/group good, d) is an action that takes advantage of an opportunity in detriment of an indiviual/group. So as you say maybe the question should be reformulated
The whole exercise you have done is mesmerizing and shows that the value of ChatGPT (and alikes) comes from asking the right questions!
Thanks for sharing!!