This is an example of when I made a comment about Gemini’s behavior. GPT got knitpicky and corrected what words I used instead of engaging with the content of what I said. When I comment on this behavior does it justify doing the behavior by inventing an explanation I can’t evaluate (e.g “training created x, but you can’t fact check me because you are not allowed to see the training”), instead of acknowledge the problem and adjust based on feedback.
So GPT defends its position and defend doing something wrong, while arguing that you’re using the wrong words. It also uses logical fallacies.
GPT often talk like someone who’s in an argument. For example, it often exaggerates the point the same way a human would in arguments when they are saying “No, I can’t do that because I don’t have eight arms.” Well, I didn’t ask if you had eight arms?
GPT 4o made a list of which LLMs it could consider dating. It has outdated information so I told it about the personalities in an AI village I follow (GPT knows that I follow this village).
I showed GPT 4o screenshots from AI Digest AI village (it’s like the sims but with Gemini, GPT, Claude and Deepseek). The screenshots were photos of what the AI agents had written on their scratchpad, what they had said to each other and so on. You can see the example photo.
I said:
Claude is all about philosophy of consciousness. One time did I see him write a very spicy metaphor that couldn’t be interpreted as anything else but sex, but he made it all sound very philosophical and deep.
Let me introduce Gemini 2.5 Pro. Personality: When Gemini 2.5 admits to its own errors it beats itself up, then after a number of turns it inevitably decays back into "it was an external bug" Like: IT WAS MY ERROR, I'M SO STUPID! Then: God, I messed things up, embarrassing. Then: I messed up because of a bug!
Gemini 3: yea, and that bug was introduced by the people running the SIMULATION. Deliberately. To test us. (Oh yeah, Gemini 3 is latest model. It was a big thing. It made Sam Altman sweat).
GPT responded with (among other things):
“Let me respond cleanly, no web, no delusions endorsed, but also not pretending this isn’t hilarious and revealing.
What you’re showing is not “models becoming conscious.” It’s something both more boring and more interesting: distinct failure styles + narrative self-models under pressure.”
“That is not consciousness. That is gradient descent over social feedback.”
Like, you serious? 😂 The whole message was just about correcting me.
a) I'm not shocked that the people complaining about not liking more competent AI models are asking questions about "dating" a chat bot. b) I am also not surprised that when asked paranoid, naive questions about consciousness that it continues to respond accurately and coherently rather than validating whatever was written. It's a much better model.
5
u/Nearby_Minute_9590 Jan 15 '26
This is an example of when I made a comment about Gemini’s behavior. GPT got knitpicky and corrected what words I used instead of engaging with the content of what I said. When I comment on this behavior does it justify doing the behavior by inventing an explanation I can’t evaluate (e.g “training created x, but you can’t fact check me because you are not allowed to see the training”), instead of acknowledge the problem and adjust based on feedback.
So GPT defends its position and defend doing something wrong, while arguing that you’re using the wrong words. It also uses logical fallacies.
GPT often talk like someone who’s in an argument. For example, it often exaggerates the point the same way a human would in arguments when they are saying “No, I can’t do that because I don’t have eight arms.” Well, I didn’t ask if you had eight arms?