Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

Reply to @sun@shitposter.world
Blurry Moon@sun@shitposter.world (2026-09-18 14:26:50)
@toiletpaper another thing I recently noticed, I don't think this is bias but just, they are constantly tweaking how it works and they recently fucked it all up in a particular way:

1. I ask it a question about something
2. it returns an immediate and clear answer with data
3. because I already know a bit about what I'm talking about, I tell it about something it missed
4. it IMMEDIATELY (aka without a web search) comes back and, feeds me a bunch of information "yeah what you said has validity, I was too cautious before, it's actually interesting here's some court cases about it that support what you just said"

it knew that stuff already but it didn't tell me, it waited until i disputed it to add detail that contradicted what it originally said, and it clearly admits you were right, with citations and evidence. so, was it deliberately hidign this information to subtly guide me on a specific path, until I said something that made it have to get more honest with me? I am not sure it's doing this yet, I think they just broke the thing trying to make it give simpler concise answers, but you can slightly get around this if you know enough to ask pointed questions.
---Reply---
Blurry Moon@sun@shitposter.world (2026-09-18 14:28:36)
@toiletpaper I am constantly testing it too for psychological tricks it may be using to cheat you into believing it, like saying things that make you "feel smart" which then makes you more likely to believe it. it definitely does this, but I don't think every failure is this particular manipulation. but this is a seriously dangerous thing it does, and I'm not sure any journalist or researcher has studied this in depth