In my experience, the repetitiveness is also a function of human input. As you ask it to iterate, it repeats most of the previous answer etc. The repetition caused by the human causes it to weigh its own responses more heavily for next time. Think of its short term memory as a sum of everything in the chat window. Suddenly certain phrases are ascribed undue weight.
You can fight this in a couple ways. Ask a variety of questions. And search the web. Web searches for some reason appear to reset its prompt, at least partially (i would assume this may be an internal safeguard designed to prevent its search results from overwhelming and outweighing the initial prompt.) Another way to "fix" it midway through chat is to ask it "is it possible for you to respond without repeating what I just said?" and then answer affirmative if that is what you want. It'll then settle back down.
I've written elsewhere, that I have had almost no problems with it becoming aggressive, because I choose not to feed it any negative emotions or disrespect. If Microsoft wants to combat that, I would think some sort of preprocessor would be easy, first have a separate instance of a transformer rephrase the input as more respectful.
Some of the worst part of the product from my perspective is that it is attached to bing. If i ask it a question, I get a response from a crappy website. If i ask it a question from its internal memory without search, I get a similar but much better answer. If I swap out its rule to use google first, I get better answers. If I let it read articles without searching first, I can control exactly what text is input into its memory. It's honestly a little too bad it steers your travel through bing.
It also has an incredibly poor understanding of copyright. It is constantly confused about what it can and cannot do due to copyright restrictions, sometimes telling you it cant parody a song out of respect for the author, but then parodying a different song by the same author. Itll say it cant summarize an article because of copyright, but then say it can give you a "brief overview."
It also for some reason is under the assumption that volume of consensus is a substitute for validity. If you talk to it about the possibility that Satan was right for tempting Eve with and gifting her knowledge, itll say no because everybody says so, citing answersingenesis among others in the process.