<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/4/25 9:43 AM, Marcus Daniels
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MN0PR11MB5985A8C03DC26A1C3FB91487C56CA@MN0PR11MB5985.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Really? The kind of biases I don’t like
seem to be system prompting preferences. For example, when
an idea is marginal, ChatGPT will kick the can forward to keep
the conversation going. Perhaps the instinct is to create a
demand signal or “billable hours”. Gemini Pro will tend to be
cautious. To use them effectively one needs to have some
self-discipline. I don’t see these tools doing obvious
motivated reasoning like people do. ChatGPT will especially
follow your lead, which can be a bad lead; it is a people
pleaser. <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I agree that the chatbot interface presented to GPT (and others
possibly less acutely) is a sycophant biased to both please humans
and encourage our continued engagement. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MN0PR11MB5985A8C03DC26A1C3FB91487C56CA@MN0PR11MB5985.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
My latest “wow” moment: I was checking up on the Kerch
bridge attack and took a few frames from the video and pasted
them for ChatGPT. I asked if the explosion suggested poor
placement by Ukrainian frogmen. It explained that blast off
to the side would be typical and suggested an attempt to
displace the pier laterally deep under the water. It did not
imply an attempt to knock the bridge down but rather to make
it unsafe to use, while also leading to incremental structural
failure.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>So to say that it reflected the (accurate?) bias of such an
operation to try to maximize effect by "satisficing" by focusing
on "making it unsafe" rather than wasting tactical resources on
more complete destruction? </p>
<p>I suppose it would be too much to ask for it to cause distortions
in the bridge which selectively modify it to become useful only
for Ukrainian goals vs Russian or perhaps civilian vs military?
By derating it's functionality marginally perhaps it can handle
medium-load commercial transport but risk failure under heavier
military (e.g.moving tanks) use?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>