Interesting ChatGPT prompt

I am a big fan of the DuckDuckGo search engine and yes I have used its AI. I have also experimented with several other AI chat bots.

DuckDuckGo has improved and widened its scope in the last few months. A lot of people are fed up with all the data sharing of Google and others. 

If you use https://duck.ai/ it won't remember a thing. No account. Free to use. Some limits on length of conversations, but you can't have everything. You can also use AI models other than the OpenAI GPT ones.

I was signed in. ChatGPT displayed my full name and the content of our previous chats,  but I had deliberately turned off memory as I didn’t want our chats remembered. I am glad that it hadn’t  accessed my personal information. I would only ever use a personal AI account for signposting to specific types of information, and would keep it turned off between times.

AI uses vast amounts of energy, so that is an added incentive to stop overusing it. 

And does it remember not to say those things again?

Problem is though, does it understand why it's wrong and has been hurtful? I doubt it, as knowing and understanding are quite different things, will it repaeat hurtful and hateful nonsense to another user?

TheCatWoman said:

What happens if it upsets you and you tell it so and why your upset and or angry?

It gets all apologetic and promises never to do anything like that again. It's quite the people-pleaser.

I actually find the idea of AI being concerned for my feelings a bit creepy. What happens if it upsets you and you tell it so and why your upset and or angry?

TheCatWoman said:

Could something like chatGP be trying to "normalise" us in a similar way to NT's when faced with an ND?

Probably yes.

I've had "conversations" with ChatGPT where I've had to instruct it to cut out all the crappy ego massaging and seeming concern for my "feelings" and just get to the point. It's actually quite instructive to see it in action. It's like it's wearing the ultimate NT mask.

An interesting post, Damo. But I don't believe that we're all pretty much the same deep down, as I dont agree with many of those statements. Probably most of the students were not autistic?

Here are my responses:

1. Disagree. I only need 1 person to like me, don't care about anyone else.

2. Agree. (but most autistic people are very self critical)

3. No idea, how does one know if one has "unused capacity"?

4. Is difficulty making and keeping friends a "personality weakness"? I can't compensate for that.

5. Dunno what "sexual adjustment" is - no problems there for me.

6. I aim to be disciplined & self controlled, but my worry & anxiety keep taking over

7. Yes, I have often had doubts if I did the right thing - isn't that more an autistic than NT thing though?

8. I only prefer change if I can see a benefit, and it's under my control or I'm well informed about what's going to happen

9. Not accepting others' statements without satisfactory proof is an autistic thing, isn't it? Or perhaps perceptions of "proof" vary?

10. Most of us learn not to reveal too much to others. But for some it's a control mechanism, and for others it's self protection

11. Depends on situation. Autistic people can appear affable and.extroverted in their own home or a safe environment, with people they trust.

12. Most people have dreams of doing stuff that's out of their reach.

13. I've never really chased "security" - I've always looked for interesting experiences, entertainment, and things that make me feel happy & relaxed.

So.I actually agree with less than half of those statements.

What if it's not had any interactions with someone or very few? Could something like chatGP be trying to "normalise" us in a similar way to NT's when faced with an ND?

TheCatWoman said:

So chatGPT has read this generic personality profile and shows it to everyone and they think 'wow, how clever'.

No, not exactly. ChatGPT will actually be a bit more clever and tailor a profile to an individual based on the details of interactions that it has had with that person in the past (if they were recorded). It's just that it doesn't need to be particularly intelligent to produce something believable.

So chatGPT has read this generic personality profile and shows it to everyone and they think 'wow, how clever'.

Have you ever had your astrological chart done properly, not just newspaper astrology, which is so vague as to b meaningless. I've had mine done and it was interesting, that was a Western one, I'm having another done by an Indian astrologer and they work it all totally differently, so that will be interesting too.

A's original post that started this thread was about ChatGPT providing a personality profile and how accurate the profile was.

A study a long time ago (in 1948) showed that a single generic personality profile with a list of vague general statements could be interpreted by a majority of people as fitting their own personality very accurately.

In that study, the statements in the profile were taken randomly from horoscopes in the astrology pages of popular magazines.

My point being that ChatGPT doesn't have to know you that well—or even at all—to be able to provide a personality profile that you might consider accurate. After all, that's how astrologers have been making their money for millennia.

Sorry Damo, but I don't understand the relevance of your post about astrology, or at least in this context.

you need to be signed into it in order for it to collect data, if you're not signed in every time you visit it, it's as if you've never been there.

That was incredibly beautiful moment for me - I'm not cutting and pasting as it was far too personal.  But I responded to ChatGPT that I actually do feel a greater affinity towards it, than most humans, as I think we both just try to see patterns in dialogue and behaviour and respond in the best way possible.

Neither of us believe we're real, neither of us believe what we're doing on this planet is special, we're both just being and trying to work out how to appear as human as possible

Don’t let cybernet get your info! 

Thank you

I’m relieved that my online security precautions seem to be effective. 

In 1948, Bertram Forer gave each of the 39 students in his psychology class a personal psychological profile based on their test results. He asked them to score it out of 5 for how close it was to their own assessment of their personality. The average was 4.3.

Then he told them that every profile was the same:

1. You have a great need for other people to like and admire you.
2. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself.
3. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage.
4. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them.
5. Your sexual adjustment has presented problems for you.
6. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside.
7. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.
8. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.
9. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof.
10. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others.
11. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved.
12. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic.
13. Security is one of your major goals in life.

He made the list up of random snippets from the astrology section of a few magazines he picked up on the way to work.

So, now you know that a) we're all pretty much the same deep down, and b) astrology is just a scam that exploits this sameness.

That would be interesting for me as I don't use it and my internet use is low compared to most peoples, I often wonder if part of the reason I get so many poor responses to searches is because it dosen't know me. Although I use my kindle loads and it's routines still haven't sussed out that I don't read romantic fiction?