I played with this and it is super interesting (almost made me register a couple domain names!) That said, to me, it once again reinforces the belief that a large factor in GPT-3 amazingness is the taste in prompting/filtering that humans apply to it, that is, it produces a ton of crap that does not catch our eye that we just silently ignore and discard, but we will amplify and share amongst ourselves the output that…
There's a subset of words produced by the site that trigger obvious and amusing ideas of what they could mean in the reader, but the generated definitions have nothing to do with that, and usually do not make much sense (besides being sometimes grammatically incorrect). It's evident that the software has no semantic understanding of what it generates. The rare occasions where the definitions appear to (almost) make creative sense are just statistical flukes.