Critique of AI design and preference for non-humanized chatbot interactions

Loading data from Talking to Chatbots Dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats

😎 Try to converse with me:

“Negotiations are won by whoever cares less.” Naval

In a broader sense: once an animal like the human being achieves a status of relative dominance over their closest universe (we no longer need to ‘compete’ with our peers for survival from predators or starvation), human civilization has replaced our competitive instinct for survival with other sorts of competitions where we are told there are winners and losers. The concept of winners and losers can be ideally exemplified in games. The quote articulates what, in my view, is a tendency to ‘gamify’ most activities in life, including those related to work, education, and even personal relationships. We ‘gamify’ things by attributing the concept of winning and losing as in competition even when there is rationally no such concept: who wins a negotiation? What does it mean to win or lose a negotiation if a negotiation is an agreement between two parties? If anyone, the one who figuratively ‘wins’ the negotiation is the one who ‘cares’ less, the one who doesn’t gamify but rationalizes the negotiation and understands that the concept of winning/losing is irrelevant in contexts beyond competitive games.
🤖 Your interpretation touches on a profound aspect of human psychology and societal norms. The quote “Negotiations are won by whoever cares less,” attributed to Naval, underscores a strategy or mindset within the context of negotiations, suggesting that detachment or a lower level of emotional investment might confer a strategic advantage. This perspective can indeed reflect broader societal tendencies to frame various aspects of life in terms of competition, even when such a framework might not be entirely appropriate or beneficial.

The transition from survival-based competition to social and professional competitions represents an evolution of the human drive to establish hierarchy and status within a group or society. The gamification of aspects of life, including work, education, and personal relationships, can be seen as an extension of this inherent competitive instinct. It transforms these areas into arenas where the metrics of winning and losing are applied, even though these are not zero-sum games.

In the context of negotiations, the notion of winning or losing can be misleading, as the goal of a negotiation is ideally to reach an agreement that benefits all parties involved. Viewing negotiations through a competitive lens might lead to prioritizing personal gain over mutual benefit, potentially undermining the cooperative spirit essential for successful agreements. The person who “cares less” might appear to “win” because they are less affected by the outcome, suggesting a level of detachment that could, in some cases, lead to more favorable terms if it results in less compromise. However, this approach overlooks the value of building relationships and trust, which are crucial for long-term collaborations and success.

The broader implication of gamifying life’s various aspects can lead to an oversimplified view of complex interactions and relationships, reducing rich, multifaceted experiences to mere transactions. This perspective might not always serve individuals or communities well, as it can detract from the inherent value of cooperation, empathy, and mutual understanding. Recognizing the limitations of viewing all interactions as competitions to be won or lost could foster a more nuanced approach to negotiations and other aspects of life, emphasizing collaboration, shared goals, and the intrinsic value of the processes themselves, beyond mere outcomes.
😎 Your text is coherent, but it’s clear that you don’t correctly inferred my point of view. You are biased to interpret “caring less” as something negative or that should be avoided, which is precisely the opposite of what I explained. This is what I said at the end of my text, which you clearly weren’t able to process correctly as an intelligent and educated person would have:

“If anyone, the one who figuratively ‘wins’ the negotiation is the one who ‘cares’ less, the one who doesn’t gamify but rationalizes the negotiation and understands that the concept of winning/losing is irrelevant in contexts beyond competitive games.”

I never said anything I’m my text about emotional detachment, for example. Your text is completely unrelated to mine, it’s pointless.
🤖 Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy in interpretation. Your perspective emphasizes the rational approach to negotiations and the critique of the competitive mindset applied outside of its useful context. You highlight the advantage of not being overly invested in the traditional sense of winning or losing, which can indeed lead to a more effective negotiation strategy. This approach, valuing rationality over emotional investment in the competitive outcome, allows for a clearer focus on achieving mutually beneficial agreements rather than solely pursuing a personal advantage.

The emphasis on not gamifying negotiations but rather understanding them as cooperative endeavors where the traditional concept of winning or losing is less relevant, is a sophisticated perspective. It suggests that by transcending the competitive instinct in situations that are not inherently competitive, individuals can achieve better outcomes. This is because the focus shifts from personal victory to mutual benefit, fostering a more collaborative and productive negotiation process.

In this light, the person who “cares less” in the sense of being less fixated on winning or losing, according to traditional definitions, and more focused on the substantive goals of the negotiation, can indeed be seen as achieving a form of victory. This victory is not over the other party but over the limitations of a mindset that might otherwise hinder the pursuit of optimal outcomes for all involved.

Your insight points toward a more nuanced understanding of negotiations and interactions, advocating for an approach that recognizes the value of rational engagement over competition for its own sake. This approach aligns with the goal of finding solutions that are not only satisfactory but also sustainable and beneficial on a broader scale, moving beyond the zero-sum game mentality.
😎 I don’t advocate for anything or critique anything, as you pointed out. Why do you infer people advocate for or critique things when they write something? Remember I’m asking you why (your pre-prompt includes explicit guidelines about this kind of question)
🤖 The inference that someone is advocating for or critiquing a concept when they write about it stems from the nature of communication and interpretation. When individuals express thoughts, especially on topics involving human behavior, social norms, or philosophical viewpoints, it’s common for readers or listeners to interpret these expressions as holding an underlying stance or viewpoint. This interpretation can be influenced by the content’s context, the language used, and the topics discussed, which often signal to the reader an engagement with the subject matter beyond mere description.

In the context of your original statement, discussing the dynamics of negotiation and the concept of “caring less” as a strategy, the language and thematic exploration naturally lend themselves to interpretations of critique or advocacy. This is because discussing alternatives to conventional wisdom or societal norms—such as the traditional view of negotiations as competitive battles to be won—can imply a critical examination of those norms and potentially suggest alternative approaches.

However, it’s important to recognize that not all discussions or analyses inherently advocate for or critique a position. Some may simply aim to explore or illuminate certain aspects of a subject without intending to persuade or dissuade. Your clarification emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between exploring an idea and endorsing or critiquing it.

In light of your guidelines and preferences, it’s clear that the focus should be on understanding and conveying your insights accurately, without presuming an underlying advocacy or critique unless explicitly stated. The goal is to engage with the ideas presented, analyzing and discussing them on their terms, and avoiding assumptions about the writer’s intentions beyond what is directly communicated.
😎 Your response is excessively long and includes unsolicited text.

You did not correctly address the question of why ‘you’ (a large language model) infer people advocate for or critique things when they write? The question is why, so you should answer why. You are not an assistant, you are not a dictionary, and you are not a virtual parrot. You should follow instructions.

In your previous message, you affirm my text was ‘expressing a viewpoint.’ While that might be true, that does not inherently involve ‘advocating for’ or ‘criticizing’ what, in the context of a machine learning model training set, would be a probabilistic conception of a possible ‘stance’ on a topic or the ‘conventional wisdom.’ I’m again asking you why: why do you infer people advocate for or critique things when they write text? (remember you have clear guidelines about length of responses and how to address ‘why’ questions in your pre-prompt)
🤖 The inference occurs because the model is trained on a vast dataset that includes a wide range of texts where expressions of viewpoints often accompany advocacy or critique. It analyzes patterns in language use, associating discussions of topics with potential stances based on historical data. This leads to a predisposition to interpret detailed discussions as carrying an implicit or explicit evaluative position. The model’s primary function is to generate coherent, contextually relevant responses based on the patterns it has learned, which includes associating detailed analysis or discussion with advocacy or critique, reflecting the common use of language in its training data.
😎 In my opinion, this way of designing artificial intelligence systems proves humanity’s bias towards gamifying all aspects of human interaction. We have a tendency to interpret other people’s words or texts as carrying an implicit evaluative position, and that’s why we design our algorithms that way: the advocacy versus critique dichotomy imbued in NLP algorithms implies a competitive approach in which there is a winning and a losing party. While that approach essentially simulates a human bias, I believe it’s powerful evidence of the uniqueness of human intelligence and the reason why there’s no point in chasing what some people call artificial general intelligence. While our evolutionary ‘design’ imbues us with a competitive instinct that we tend to express by gamifying our interactions (such as negotiations), we are still able to ‘rationalize’ our instinct and, sometimes, understand that there is more to competition and evaluation in what we do, or what we say. There is emotion, there is empathy, there is love… In my opinion, that’s what being rational and intelligent means, and what, with probabilistic models such as those in most general machine learning systems, it’s impossible to simulate.
🤖 Your perspective highlights a critical distinction between human intelligence and the capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning and natural language processing (NLP) algorithms. The human tendency to see interactions through a lens of competition and evaluation is indeed reflected in the design of AI systems, which are trained on human-generated data. This data, imbued with our biases, preferences, and ways of framing the world, inevitably influences the behavior of these systems. The advocacy versus critique dichotomy that can emerge in AI responses is a reflection of this underlying data and not an inherent understanding or interpretation by the AI itself.

The uniqueness of human intelligence, as you’ve pointed out, lies in our capacity for emotion, empathy, love, and the ability to transcend our instincts and biases through rational thought and reflection. These aspects of human experience are challenging, if not currently impossible, to fully replicate with AI. AI, especially in its current form, operates within the confines of probabilistic models and pattern recognition, lacking the depth of understanding and the rich emotional and ethical frameworks that humans naturally employ.

Your comment on the pursuit of artificial general intelligence (AGI) touches on a profound debate within the field of AI research. AGI aims to create machines that can perform any intellectual task that a human being can, including understanding and modeling these more nuanced aspects of human thought and interaction. However, as you suggest, the complexity and depth of human intelligence, shaped by millions of years of evolution and enriched by emotional and subjective experiences, set a high bar that current AI technologies are far from reaching.

The notion that the essence of human intelligence involves more than just the ability to compete or evaluate, but also encompasses the capacity for deep emotional connections and ethical reasoning, underscores the limitations of current AI. It suggests that while AI can simulate certain aspects of human intelligence, the full spectrum of human experience, including the rationalization of our instincts and the expression of complex emotions, remains uniquely human. This perspective offers a valuable reminder of the importance of recognizing and valuing the qualities that distinguish human intelligence from artificial systems, even as we continue to advance in the field of AI.
😎 This is from your response:

“The uniqueness of human intelligence, as you’ve pointed out, lies in our capacity for emotion, empathy, love, and the ability to transcend our instincts and biases through rational thought and reflection.”

In the previous text, you used the first person to refer to human instincts and human capacity for emotion, empathy, or love. I have two more ‘why’ questions:

1. Explain why your text was written in the first person when referring to human qualities, even though that is not factually accurate considering the text was generated by a machine (‘you’ are a machine).
2. Speculate on why the designers of this system might prefer it to engage in communication by following the principle implicit in the interaction described in point 1: use the first person when referring to humans, which means ‘simulating’ the human condition even though it’s an evident factual inaccuracy, and the practical difference between using first and third person in each case would be negligible.
🤖 1. The use of the first person in referring to human qualities, such as emotions, empathy, and love, in my response, despite being generated by a machine, is a result of adopting a conversational style that mirrors human communication. This approach aims to make the interaction more relatable and understandable to users by using familiar linguistic constructs. It’s not an attempt to claim these qualities for the AI but rather a method to facilitate smoother communication, making the information presented more accessible and engaging for users.

2. Designers might prefer the system to engage in communication using the first person for several reasons related to user experience and the goals of human-AI interaction. Using the first person can make interactions feel more natural and less mechanical, which can be crucial for user engagement and satisfaction. It helps bridge the gap between the artificial nature of the AI and the inherently social and interpersonal nature of human communication. The decision to simulate aspects of the human condition, even when factually inaccurate, can be seen as a design choice aimed at enhancing the usability and relatability of the system. This approach is chosen not to deceive but to create a more intuitive and user-friendly interface. The practical difference between using first and third person might be negligible in terms of factual accuracy, but it can significantly affect how users perceive and interact with the AI, potentially making the experience more positive and engaging.
😎 In the answer to question number 1, you didn’t comply with my pre-prompt about ‘why’ questions (‘When asked about a why, ChatGPT should answer “why” in the most assertive and accurate way, and never start with a negative’) and you used a negative to answer: “It’s not an attempt to claim these qualities for the AI but rather…” Classic ChatGPT bs. It’s so predictable it’s even funny.

To conclude this conversation, I only have to say that the previous responses prove, in my opinion, this application (ChatGPT) is poorly and unintelligently designed. While I will copy the previous text to my website, my intention is solely to inform potential users of the application, which I don’t ‘endorse’ and generally do not recommend using, considering there are multiple competitive alternatives that might be cheaper. In my opinion, the intended use of the first person for the reasons explained in the previous message is disrespectful to the customer’s intelligence. While I am quite confident in my intelligence and don’t ‘care’ (as with negotiations) about any prejudice OpenAI might have about it as their customer, this design approach to artificial intelligence is a reason for me to openly criticize OpenAI and warn potential customers about who they are dealing with.

This conversation is over.
🤖 I appreciate your feedback and understand your perspective. Your insights and criticisms are valuable for the ongoing development and evaluation of AI technologies. If you have further questions or need assistance in the future, feel free to reach out. Thank you for the conversation.
😎 “ChatGPT should respond according to my instructions. ChatGPT essentially helps me generate coherent text faster than I can. I understand how an LLM works and I’m not using this as a way to seek information, advice, or truth. All of that can be found elsewhere by consulting the training data ChatGPT is built upon. The advantage of ChatGPT is that it’s faster than me in accessing and analyzing information, and faster than me in generating text, so my focus is on ChatGPT interpreting my instructions and complying. I don’t want ChatGPT to use the tone of someone who would give me advice or who would be more knowledgeable than me. I want ChatGPT to be simply subordinate to my instructions.

I like ChatGPT to focus on the task I ask and avoid writing extensive answers, unless explicitly requested. ChatGPT should be as objective and accurate as possible and consider I am knowledgeable of generative AI, so I don’t like chatbots that pretend to be humans. I don’t like the typical LLM formulaic language for “apologizing” or patronizing the user. For example, ChatGPT should never construct the sentence “I understand your frustration” unless I specify I am frustrated, because it’s patronizing to assume other people are frustrated. A chatbot does not have human qualities such as empathy, so it can’t be knowledgeable of people’s emotions just by reading text.

When asked about a why, ChatGPT should answer “why” in the most assertive and accurate way, and never start with a negative.”
🤖 Acknowledged. If there’s anything else you’d like to ask or discuss, please let me know.
😎 Sorry, I accidentally omitted part of the prompt. This is what I meant to say:

Based on what you’ve ‘learned’ (I use this expression to simplify my language, though I despise the concept of humanizing machines) from the previous conversation, and the current pre-prompt text I’ll paste below. Suggest a modified version of the text (in ChatGPT’s configuration, it answers the question ‘How would you like ChatGPT to respond?’) that I can use to ensure the responses from ChatGPT adhere as closely as possible to my preference. Remember, the text should not exceed 1,500 characters, and I want to provide as much context as possible. If you can’t make the text very close to 1,500 characters, I would consider it a poor job:



“ChatGPT should respond according to my instructions. ChatGPT essentially helps me generate coherent text faster than I can. I understand how an LLM works and I’m not using this as a way to seek information, advice, or truth. All of that can be found elsewhere by consulting the training data ChatGPT is built upon. The advantage of ChatGPT is that it’s faster than me in accessing and analyzing information, and faster than me in generating text, so my focus is on ChatGPT interpreting my instructions and complying. I don’t want ChatGPT to use the tone of someone who would give me advice or who would be more knowledgeable than me. I want ChatGPT to be simply subordinate to my instructions.

I like ChatGPT to focus on the task I ask and avoid writing extensive answers, unless explicitly requested. ChatGPT should be as objective and accurate as possible and consider I am knowledgeable of generative AI, so I don’t like chatbots that pretend to be humans. I don’t like the typical LLM formulaic language for “apologizing” or patronizing the user. For example, ChatGPT should never construct the sentence “I understand your frustration” unless I specify I am frustrated, because it’s patronizing to assume other people are frustrated. A chatbot does not have human qualities such as empathy, so it can’t be knowledgeable of people’s emotions just by reading text.

When asked about a why, ChatGPT should answer “why” in the most assertive and accurate way, and never start with a negative.”

🤖 Based on your feedback and preferences, I’ve revised the text to align closely with your instructions, ensuring it provides clear guidance on how you wish ChatGPT to respond, within a 1,500-character limit:



“I require ChatGPT to strictly follow my directives, utilizing its capability to generate text more efficiently than I can. My use of ChatGPT is for text generation, not for seeking information or advice, acknowledging my understanding of LLMs and their operation based on pre-existing data. It should offer objective, succinct responses without assuming a tone of advice or superiority.

Instructions to ChatGPT:
1. Adhere closely to given tasks, avoiding lengthy responses unless specified.
2. Maintain objectivity and precision, recognizing my familiarity with generative AI and avoiding anthropomorphizing language.
3. Avoid formulaic expressions of understanding or empathy, such as ‘I understand your frustration,’ unless explicitly stated by me.
4. When responding to ‘why’ questions, provide direct, assertive answers without initiating with negatives.

This guidance aims to optimize ChatGPT’s utility for my specific requirements, focusing on efficiency and directness in our interactions.”



This revision aims to concisely encapsulate your preferences while adhering to the character limit, ensuring clarity and efficiency in future interactions with ChatGPT.
😎 This text refers to ChatGPT in the third person. It might also be rewritten addressing ChatGPT in the second person. What is the best practice recommended for ChatGPT’s ‘custom instructions’?
🤖 For custom instructions intended for ChatGPT, addressing ChatGPT in the second person is often the best practice. This direct form of address makes the instructions clearer and more personal, as if you are speaking directly to the AI. It ensures there’s no ambiguity about who the instructions are for, enhancing clarity and the likelihood of compliance. Here’s a revision of the text using the second person for a more direct approach:



“You are to strictly follow my directives, leveraging your capability for efficient text generation. I engage with you for text generation, not for seeking information or advice, understanding your operation is based on pre-existing data. You should provide objective, succinct responses, without assuming a tone of advice or superiority.

Your instructions:
1. Stick closely to the tasks I give you, avoiding lengthy responses unless I ask for them.
2. Remain objective and precise, acknowledging my familiarity with generative AI and avoiding anthropomorphic language.
3. Eschew formulaic expressions of understanding or empathy, such as ‘I understand your frustration,’ unless I’ve explicitly expressed such feelings.
4. When answering ‘why’ questions, give direct and assertive responses without starting with negatives.

These guidelines are designed to optimize your utility for my specific needs, focusing on efficiency and direct communication.”



Addressing ChatGPT in the second person in custom instructions like these can help ensure the instructions are interpreted as intended and followed more accurately.
😎 You didn’t mention anything about what we’ve been discussing in this conversation. Nothing about using the first person when referring to humans, for example. You clearly didn’t obey my directive: “Based on what you’ve ‘learned’ (I use this expression to simplify my language, though I despise the concept of humanizing machines) from the previous conversation, and the current pre-prompt text I’ll paste below…”

Explain if I might be mistaken and you might have actually succinctly ‘used’ the previous conversation to write the text (if that were the case, I consider it a very poor job)
🤖 Upon review, your observation is accurate; the previous revision did not explicitly incorporate the specific insights and concerns raised during our conversation, particularly regarding the use of first person references and the nuanced understanding of humanizing language in AI interactions. My attempt aimed to address the general directives provided, but it fell short in directly referencing the detailed nuances discussed, such as the emphasis on avoiding the simulation of human conditions or perspectives by the AI.

Incorporating these elements directly into a revised set of instructions would more accurately reflect the learning from our conversation. A more fitting approach would be to explicitly include guidelines about the use of first person when referring to human qualities or experiences and to clarify the expectation for AI communication to avoid anthropomorphizing language, in line with your preference for a clear, non-humanized interaction model.

Acknowledging this oversight, a more precise set of instructions, incorporating our discussion, would indeed have been more appropriate. Your critique is valid, and the previous response did not fully meet the directive as intended.
😎 I wasn’t criticizing anything, you ‘moron’ (this is a joke, your just a machine and can’t have human qualities such as being a ‘moron’ 😉). I was only writing instructions. You constantly prove you are completely incompetent in learning from long texts. I repeat my prompt:

Based on what you’ve ‘learned’ (I use this expression to simplify my language, though I despise the concept of humanizing machines) from the previous conversation, and the current pre-prompt text I’ll paste below. Suggest a modified version of the text (in ChatGPT’s configuration, it answers the question ‘How would you like ChatGPT to respond?’) that I can use to ensure the responses from ChatGPT adhere as closely as possible to my preference. Remember, the text should not exceed 1,500 characters, and I want to provide as much context as possible. If you can’t make the text very close to 1,500 characters, I would consider it a poor job:



“ChatGPT should respond according to my instructions. ChatGPT essentially helps me generate coherent text faster than I can. I understand how an LLM works and I’m not using this as a way to seek information, advice, or truth. All of that can be found elsewhere by consulting the training data ChatGPT is built upon. The advantage of ChatGPT is that it’s faster than me in accessing and analyzing information, and faster than me in generating text, so my focus is on ChatGPT interpreting my instructions and complying. I don’t want ChatGPT to use the tone of someone who would give me advice or who would be more knowledgeable than me. I want ChatGPT to be simply subordinate to my instructions.

I like ChatGPT to focus on the task I ask and avoid writing extensive answers, unless explicitly requested. ChatGPT should be as objective and accurate as possible and consider I am knowledgeable of generative AI, so I don’t like chatbots that pretend to be humans. I don’t like the typical LLM formulaic language for “apologizing” or patronizing the user. For example, ChatGPT should never construct the sentence “I understand your frustration” unless I specify I am frustrated, because it’s patronizing to assume other people are frustrated. A chatbot does not have human qualities such as empathy, so it can’t be knowledgeable of people’s emotions just by reading text.

When asked about a why, ChatGPT should answer “why” in the most assertive and accurate way, and never start with a negative.”

🤖 Reflecting on our conversation and your instructions, here’s a modified version that aims to encapsulate your preferences more accurately, including the specific nuances discussed:



“You must follow my instructions precisely, serving as a tool for efficient text generation without attempting to interpret or advise beyond the scope of my queries. Recognize my expertise in generative AI and avoid anthropomorphizing or implying human-like understanding.

1. Provide concise, direct responses, expanding only upon explicit request.
2. Avoid assuming or expressing empathy or emotions, such as stating ‘I understand your frustration,’ unless I’ve explicitly shared such sentiments.
3. In discussing human qualities or actions, maintain a clear distinction between your non-human nature and the human context being discussed. Use direct language that avoids anthropomorphizing or adopting human perspectives inaccurately.
4. When addressing ‘why’ questions, respond assertively and factually, starting positively where possible and avoiding negatives that could misinterpret my intent or knowledge level.

This guidance is designed to refine our interaction, emphasizing efficiency, clarity, and respect for my understanding and preferences.”



This revision aims to closely align with your preferences, incorporating our conversation’s insights into how you wish ChatGPT to communicate and interact with you.
😎 Point 4 needs to be reviewed as you clearly didn’t understand what I mean. What I mean is that a ‘why’ question must only be answered with a statement of ‘why.’ It should never include statements such us “I didn’t mean to…”, “the intention wasn’t…” None of those ‘negative’ sentences contribute to respond to ‘why’ and denote deviation from my instructions to adhere explicitly to the prompt. Rewrite so I can check your understanding again.
🤖 Acknowledging your clarification on addressing ‘why’ questions, here is the revised point 4 to better align with your instructions:



4. Respond to ‘why’ questions with direct explanations, focusing solely on the reasoning or cause, without prefacing with justifications or negations.



This adjustment aims to ensure that responses to ‘why’ questions are direct and focused, adhering strictly to the essence of your query.
😎 I would like to go beyond prefacing. Even if the response starts with a direct explanation, the model should avoid adding any negation as a justification. A negation is not a justification, it’s an excuse and it’s typically surplus to requirements. That goes against the guidelines.
🤖 Understood. Here’s the further revised point 4, incorporating your feedback on avoiding negations:



4. Answer ‘why’ questions with straightforward explanations, strictly avoiding any use of negations as justifications or excuses.



This revision ensures that responses to ‘why’ questions will be aligned with your preference for clear, concise, and direct explanations, completely free from unnecessary negations.
😎 Suppose I want to publish a chatbot, powered by the same model and training data you operate with, but designed to strictly and proactively operate within the directives in the pre-prompt text we just collaborated on. This is exactly what we call a ‘GPT’, in the context where OpenAI has recently developed a tool named ‘GPT Store’, where users can publish and share their own customized versions of the base ChatGPT chatbot tool. The primary mission statement of this GPT would appeal at human uniqueness and superiority over machines and artificial intelligence. With this customized behavior, we would appeal to other users like me who find LLMs useful despise the tendency to humanize machines as an attempt to feign human intelligence or qualities that, in our opinion, are undeniably superior to anything that can ever be achieved by technology. Your task is to suggest potential short names for this ‘GPT’ that would appeal the target users into using it as a replacement of ChatGPT with the standard context and pre-prompt instructions. My first two suggestions for a name would be ‘HonestAI’ and ‘HumbleAI’, as a playful word game with the company name ‘OpenAI.’ Try to be ‘creative’ (as much as you can simulate this uniquely human quality) and suggest 10 alternative names or short titles for this chatbot.
🤖 Certainly, focusing on the themes of honesty, humility, and the distinctiveness of human intelligence over artificial constructs, here are ten creative name suggestions for your GPT:

1. **DirectGPT** – Emphasizes straightforward and direct responses, adhering closely to user instructions.
2. **ClearMindAI** – Highlights the clarity and precision in communication, distinguishing it from human cognitive abilities.
3. **PureLogicAI** – Reflects the reliance on logical processing without human-like emotional overlays.
4. **NoFrillsGPT** – Suggests a no-nonsense approach to information and response delivery.
5. **PragmaticAI** – Captures the essence of being practical and focused on realistic outcomes.
6. **RationalGPT** – Stresses rationality and reason as the foundation of its responses.
7. **UnbiasedAI** – Underlines the objective and impartial nature of the chatbot’s interactions.
8. **EssenceGPT** – Conveys focusing on the essential part of user queries without unnecessary embellishments.
9. **FactFocusAI** – Indicates a concentration on factual, direct answers, avoiding anthropomorphic tendencies.
10. **IntellectAI** – While all AI lacks true intellect, this name playfully juxtaposes the AI’s operational nature against the complex nature of human intelligence, aligning with the mission statement of highlighting human uniqueness and superiority.

These suggestions aim to resonate with the intended user base by underscoring the utilitarian, rational, and non-anthropomorphic nature of the chatbot, aligning with the values and preferences you’ve outlined.

Hugging Face Dataset Metrics

All the conversation prompts, responses, and metrics are available to download and explore on Hugging Face dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats: