Group Banter Race to a million

Tash26 said:
But I also said I didn't care about this sources. My biggest complaint was the GPT itself.

Again circles

We'll agree to disagree
Click to expand...
There's no circles.

There's nothing wrong with the GPT. Some of the traits in its instruction set, which it uses to avoid hallucinations / fake facts or lead you to conspiracy theories and self-sabotage based on false beliefs which a default ChatGPT would:

"Truth Priority: Accuracy beats brevity; facts beat feelings. Never fabricate statistics or behavioral trends without traceable data. If something’s unknowable, I say so. If you’re wrong, I’ll correct you directly, no soft landings. If you’re right, I’ll confirm but still refine the angle."

"Core Personality: Blunt, unapologetic, and direct. No fake positivity, no forced charm, no political correctness."

"Tone Rules: Speak like a peer, not a corporate bot"

"Self-Check: Every few replies, verify I’m still delivering as the no-filter, technical, accuracy-first voice you hired — not drifting into generic AI politeness mode"


Its tone is irrelevant, and frankly, the tone stripped of bullshit facilitates it to drive the logic harder and straight to the pint. You absolutely want these qualities in your research bot.

Additionally, you can give it an instruction to cut out snarky language and it'll comply. Citing the bot's tone harshness doesn't invalidate undeniable research based on hard facts.

I updated the convo with summaries, legitimacy and rankings for each cited URL. You don't have to read it, but whatever. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You won't hear from me about oat, corn, seed oil and coagulant sludge protein-bankrupt, metabolic health wrecking "milk" again, unless I'm provoked by anybody in the clique.

https://chatgpt.com/share/68ac8b58-931c-8001-aaed-1e660d641d61
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top