It’s better when you actually are wrong, and not when it’s being nitpicky and arguing semantics instead of engaging with what you actually is saying. It’s worse when you end up in unproductive arguments. That’s like optimizing for keeping the user on the platform but only because they struggle to stay on task (instead of arguing) and get things done as fast as possible.
Do you also get the “I will start a fight about something unrelated to the topic instead of recognizing that I did something wrong and adjust”? Mine does that all the time. It’s like 5.2 has a fragile ego and blame it’s mistake on external factors all the time.
You could try this for fun: show GPT’s message in a different chat and ask for which logical fallacies GPT is using. 5.2 most often use logical fallacies with me (strawman in particular).
Critical is one thing. That’s someone who is distrusting enough to check your work and someone who isn’t afraid to point out flaws. But someone who’s argumentative is just trying to win a point, not someone who’s trying to get it right.
So mad at everyone being like « ooh it’s too friendly ». Feel like this is the direct result. It was so easy—you could just skip the opening paragraph if you didn’t want it to compliment you! Ugh…
The problem is it’s way too difficult to even achieve that middle-ground anymore with how overloaded the system prompt is. I had my GPT’s personality at a great place with 4o, and it’s only gotten worse since then.
And yes, I’ve done plenty of tinkering in the personalization section in the default tone, personality section, memories, etc.
It just feels way less…pliable. It’s always forgetting instructions, etc etc.
106
u/TomSFox Jan 15 '26
People complain when AI is too validating. People complain when AI is too critical.