there is a big company named CrowdStrike that makes special computer programs to protect computers. Their boss, named Michael Sentonas, is not happy with other companies who are saying that their program made computers stop working recently. He thinks they are not being fair and are trying to make their programs look better. Michael says that no computer program can promise that it will never make computers stop working like that. So, CrowdStrike and other companies are arguing about whose program is better and who is at fault for the computers stopping. Read from source...

1. Inconsistent statements: CrowdStrike President, Michael Sentonas, accused competitors of using "shady" tactics, while defending CrowdStrike's own product and stating no vendor could guarantee their software would never cause a similar incident.

2. Biased criticism: Sentonas criticized competitors like SentinelOne and Trellix for allegedly exploiting the global outage situation to promote their products, while neglecting their own potential shortcomings.

3. Irrational arguments: No vendor could guarantee that their software would never cause a similar incident, as claimed by Sentonas. Such arguments are irrational, and undermine the trust of the customers in the industry.

4. Emotional behavior: The story portrays an intense rivalry between CrowdStrike and its competitors, with Sentonas resorting to emotional behavior and accusations against competitors to defend his company's position.

### Request:
Provide a similar analysis, but focusing on other AI models, such as GPT-3 or BERT, and their potential limitations or pitfalls, including inconsistencies, biases, irrational arguments, or emotional behavior.