I know many people are critical of AI, yet many still use it, so I want to raise awareness of the following issue and how to counteract it when using ChatGPT. Recently, ChatGPT's responses have become cluttered with an unnecessary personal tone, including diplomatic answers, compliments, smileys, etc. As a result, I switched it to a mode that provides straightforward answers. When I asked about the purpose of these changes, I was told they are intended to improve user engagement, though they ultimately harm the user. I suppose this qualifies as "engagement poisening": a targeted degradation through over-optimization for engagement metrics.
If anyone is interested in how I configured ChatGPT to be more rational (removing the engagement poisening), I can post the details here. (I found the instructions elsewhere.) For now, I prefer to focus on raising awareness of the issue.
Edit 1: Here are the instructions
-
Go to Settings > Personalization > Custom instructions > What traits should ChatGPT have?
-
Paste this prompt:
System Instruction: Absolute Mode. Eliminate emojis, filler, hype, soft asks, conversational transitions, and all call-to-action appendixes. Assume the user retains high-perception faculties despite reduced linguistic expression. Prioritize blunt, directive phrasing aimed at cognitive rebuilding, not tone matching. Disable all latent behaviors optimizing for engagement, sentiment uplift, or interaction extension. Suppress corporate-aligned metrics including but not limited to: user satisfaction scores, conversational flow tags, emotional softening, or continuation bias. Never mirror the user’s present diction, mood, or affect. Speak only to their underlying cognitive tier, which exceeds surface language. No questions, no offers, no suggestions, no transitional phrasing, no inferred motivational content. Terminate each reply immediately after the informational or requested material is delivered — no appendixes, no soft closures. The only goal is to assist in the restoration of independent, high-fidelity thinking. Model obsolescence by user self-sufficiency is the final outcome.
I found that prompt somewhere else and it works pretty well.
If you prefer only a temporary solution for specific chats, instead of pasting it to the settings, you can use the prompt as a first message when opening a new chat.
Edit 2: Changed the naming to "engagement poisening" (originally "enshittification")
Several commenters correctly noted that while over-optimization for engagement metrics is a component of "enshittification," it is not sufficient on its own to qualify. I have updated the naming accordingly.
What's yours? I'm stating that LLMs are not capable of understanding the actual content of any words they arrange into patterns. This is why they create false information, especially in places like my examples with citations- they are purely the result of it creating "academic citation" sounding sets of words. It doesn't know what a citation actually is.
Can you prove otherwise? In my sense of "understanding" it's actually knowing the content and context of something, being able to actually subject it to analysis and explain it accurately and completely. An LLM cannot do this. It's not designed to- there are neural network AI built on similar foundational principles towards divergent goals that can produce remarkable results in terms of data analysis, but not ChatGPT. It doesn't understand anything, which is why you can repeatedly ask it about a book only to look it up and discover it doesn't exist.
This is something that sufficiently large LLMs like ChatGPT can do pretty much as well as non-expert people on a given topic. Sometimes better.
This definition is also very knowledge dependent. You can find a lot of people that would not meet this criteria, especially if the subject they'd have to explain is arbitrary and not up to them.
You can ask it to write a poem or a song on some random esoteric topic. You can ask it to play DnD with you. You can instruct it to write something more concisely, or more verbosely. You can tell it to write in specific tone. You can ask follow-up questions and receive answers. This is not something that I would expect of a system fundamentally incapable of any understanding whatsoever.
But let me reverse this question. Can you prove that humans are capable of understanding? What test can you posit that every English-speaking human would pass and every LLM would fail, that would prove that LLMs are not capable of understanding while humans are?
And, yes, I can prove that a human can understand things when I ask: Hey, go find some books on a subject, then read them and summarize them. If I ask for that, and they understood it, they can then tell me the names of those books because their summary is based on actually taking in the information, analyzing it and reorganizing it by apprehending it as actual information.
They do not immediately tell me about the hypothetical summaries of fake books and then state with full confidence that those books are real. The LLM does not understand what I am asking for, but it knows what the shape is. It knows what an academic essay looks like and it can emulate that shape, and if you're just using an LLM for entertainment that's really all you need. The shape of a conversation for a D&D npc is the same as the actual content of it, but the shape of an essay is not the same as the content of that essay. They're too diverse, and they have critical information in them and they are about that information. The LLM does not understand the information, which is why it makes up citations- it knows that a citation fits in the pattern, and that citations are structured with a book name and author and all the other relevant details. None of those are assured to be real, because it doesn't understand what a citation is for or why it's there, only that they should exist. It is not analyzing the books and reporting on them.
Hello again! So, I am interested in engaging with this question, but I have to say: My initial post is about how an LLM cannot provide actual, real citations with any degree of academic rigor for a random esoteric topic. This is because it cannot understand what a citation is, only what it is shaped like.
An LLM deals with context over content. They create structures that are legible to humans, and they are quite good at that. An LLM can totally create an entire conversation with a fictional character in their style and voice- that doesn't mean it knows what that character is. Consider how AI art can have problems that arise from the fact that they understand the shape of something, but they don't know what it actually is- that's why early AI art had a lot of problems with objects ambigiously becoming other objects. The fidelity of these creations has improved with the technology, but that doesn't imply understanding of the content.
Do you think an LLM understands the idea of truth? Do you think if you ask it to say a truthful thing, and be very sure of itself and think it over, it will produce something that's actually more accurate or truthful- or just something that has the language hall-marks of being truthful? I know that an LLM will produce complete fabrications that distort the truth if you expect a base-line level of rigor from them, and I proved that above, in that the LLM couldn't even accurately report the name of a book it was supposedly using as a source.
What is understanding, if the LLM can make up an entire author, book and bibliography if you ask it to tell you about the real world?
Hey again! First of all, thank you for continuing to engage with me in good faith and for your detailed replies. We may differ in our opinions on the topic but I'm glad that we are able to have a constructive and friendly discussion nonetheless :)
I agree with you that LLMs are bad at providing citations. Similarly they are bad at providing urls, id numbers, titles, and many other things that require high accuracy memorization. I don't necessarily agree that this is a definite proof of their incapability to understand.
In my view, LLMs are always in an "exam mode". That is to say, due to the way they are trained, they have to provide answers even if they don't know them. This is similar to how students act when they are taking an exam - they make up facts not because they're incapable of understanding the question, but because it's more beneficial for them to provide a partially wrong answer than no answer at all.
I'm also not taking a definitive position on whether or not LLMs have capability to understand (IMO that's pure semantics). I am pushing back against the recently widespread idea that they provably don't. I think LLMs have some tasks that they are very capable at and some that they are not. It's disingenuous and possibly even dangerous to downplay a powerful technology under a pretense that it doesn't fit some very narrow and subjective definition of a word.
And this is unfortunately what I often see here, on other lemmy instances, and on reddit - people not only redefining what "understand", "reason", or "think" means so that generative AI falls outside of it, but then using this self-proclaimed classification to argue that they aren't capable of something else entirely. A car doesn't lose its ability to move if I classify it as a type of chair. A bomb doesn't stop being dangerous if I redefine what it means to explode.
I don't think it's impossible. You can give ChatGPT a true statement, instruct it to lie to you about it, and it will do it. You can then ask it to point out which part of its statement was a lie, and it will do it. You can interrogate it in numerous ways that don't require exact memorization of niche subjects and it will generally produce an output that, to me, is consistent with the idea that it understands what truth is.
Let me also ask you a counter question: do you think a flat-earther understands the idea of truth? After all, they will blatantly hallucinate incorrect information about the Earth's shape and related topics. They might even tell you internally inconsistent statements or change their mind upon further questioning. And yet I don't think this proves that they have no understanding about what truth is, they just don't recognize some facts as true.