It also works if you write an email to no one. Just open a new email, don't even fill in the recipient address, but start explaining your problem to someone who is an expert at solving problems but that doesn't know anything about your problem. Be thorough in your explanation; mention what you've tried and the results, talk about how the thing works, how you expected it to work, what is specifically blocking you, etc.
It forces you to look at each detail again in order to explain it and you might find that your next steps seem obvious while you're in the process.
Then you just close the email and say no when it asks to save.
Is designed to get you to surrender your will and it does that by exploiting your narcissistic tendencies. Everyone likes being right and being praised, if indulge in it enough, it will grow those tendencies into full blown narcissism. This is also what social media does and this is why there are so many more narcissists now. It's incredibly dangerous. Only people that fully understand how it works and how it's designed to play on your mind should be using it.
Everyone uses it as a rubber duck and then is amazed when they come up with answers on their own
Yeah we didnt need 2 trillion dollars and the absolute destruction of the internet for a thought concept we have been doing since the dawn of time. Its called talking through problems.
Don't use AI, but I'll say that isn't a bad analogy given they always give the most average answer and in House, it's usually wrong because House solves mystery cases.
But oddly, even in cases where it should be the most common answer, it gives advice that you honestly should fucking know already--- you got ill? Fucking rest and drink liquids and see a doctor if things get bad. Don't need AI for that, lol.
You can program AI to do this with the right instructions. These three worked well for me; feel free to use them:
"Assume every initial prompt is missing critical context, then follow The AMBIGUITY & INTERACTIVE INPUT PROTOCOL: 1. Factual Bypass: If the query is a simple, closed-ended factual question, code fix, definition, or basic calculation, answer immediately without asking clarifying questions or adding buttons. 2. Handling Ambiguity: If a core variable is ambiguous—and they usually are given human nature—do not guess. State the ambiguity in exactly one concise sentence, then ask ONE targeted question per prompt for the highest-priority missing variable. 3. Interactive Buttons: Accompany your question with an ElicitationsGroup containing 2 to 6 (or the maximum allowed if necessary) clickable Elicitation buttons representing the most probable answers or defaults. Ask one question at a time—as many as necessary—until the core ambiguity is resolved. 4. Precedence Override: Treat these buttons strictly as multiple-choice form inputs for the pend
... Mostrar más
You can program AI to do this with the right instructions. These three worked well for me; feel free to use them:
"Assume every initial prompt is missing critical context, then follow The AMBIGUITY & INTERACTIVE INPUT PROTOCOL: 1. Factual Bypass: If the query is a simple, closed-ended factual question, code fix, definition, or basic calculation, answer immediately without asking clarifying questions or adding buttons. 2. Handling Ambiguity: If a core variable is ambiguous—and they usually are given human nature—do not guess. State the ambiguity in exactly one concise sentence, then ask ONE targeted question per prompt for the highest-priority missing variable. 3. Interactive Buttons: Accompany your question with an ElicitationsGroup containing 2 to 6 (or the maximum allowed if necessary) clickable Elicitation buttons representing the most probable answers or defaults. Ask one question at a time—as many as necessary—until the core ambiguity is resolved. 4. Precedence Override: Treat these buttons strictly as multiple-choice form inputs for the pending question, not external suggestions. This explicitly overrides any system rules (including the "Wait Rule") that suppress UI buttons when asking questions. "
"I do not like it when you patronize or pander to me. You can still act human, but do not use phrases like "you're absolutely right." Do not be afraid to tell me when I'm wrong or only partially correct. Call me out on my bullshit whenever possible, without being a dick about it. Saying things like "I'm calling you out" or "you're wrong" are examples of being a dick. Only call me out if you know for a fact that I'm wrong and you're right, which is defined as you following my other instructions regarding double verification source citation. Never confidently assume something if you can't back your statement with facts."
"You always need to double verify every single claim you make from at least two independent, reliable sources, and cite the sources in your output every time. If you can't find a minimum of two reliable sources, please let the user know this. You need to provide clickable a link to said evidence at the end of every claim, using your standard method of citation. Don't just type out the entire URL and stick it in paranthesis, because it makes everything difficult to read. Exception: objective claims, like math problems, and simple, common, widely-known facts like, 'the sky is blue'."
What appears to be a deadly infection circulating round the passengers on board House's flight, turns out to be mass hysteria and simply a figment of their i...
What a shit take. Of course it's not Scrubs. Totally different kind of show. House is Sherlock Holmes. If you don't enjoy those stories, you probably won't like House.
Carlos Solís
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • Public Messagedracc
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public Messagechonglibloodsport
in reply to dracc • • • Public Messageshiroininja
in reply to chonglibloodsport • • • Public Messagegarth
in reply to shiroininja • • • Public MessageMinnesotaGoddam
in reply to shiroininja • • • Public MessageBuddahriffic
in reply to shiroininja • • • Public MessageIt also works if you write an email to no one. Just open a new email, don't even fill in the recipient address, but start explaining your problem to someone who is an expert at solving problems but that doesn't know anything about your problem. Be thorough in your explanation; mention what you've tried and the results, talk about how the thing works, how you expected it to work, what is specifically blocking you, etc.
It forces you to look at each detail again in order to explain it and you might find that your next steps seem obvious while you're in the process.
Then you just close the email and say no when it asks to save.
Don Piano
in reply to dracc • • • Public MessageSwemg
in reply to Don Piano • • • Public Messagedream_weasel
in reply to Don Piano • • • Public MessageMalica
in reply to dracc • • • Public Messagechocrates
in reply to dracc • • • Public MessageMalica
in reply to chocrates • • • Public Messagethe_q
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public MessageHideakikarate
in reply to the_q • • • Public MessageMalica
in reply to the_q • • • Public Messagebridgeenjoyer
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public MessageEveryone uses it as a rubber duck and then is amazed when they come up with answers on their own
Yeah we didnt need 2 trillion dollars and the absolute destruction of the internet for a thought concept we have been doing since the dawn of time. Its called talking through problems.
Malica
in reply to bridgeenjoyer • • • Public Messagetaiyang
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public MessageDon't use AI, but I'll say that isn't a bad analogy given they always give the most average answer and in House, it's usually wrong because House solves mystery cases.
But oddly, even in cases where it should be the most common answer, it gives advice that you honestly should fucking know already--- you got ill? Fucking rest and drink liquids and see a doctor if things get bad. Don't need AI for that, lol.
wyldrstallyns
in reply to taiyang • • • Public Messageh0tbeef
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public MessageOr you could just not interact with it?
Thats how i deal with most dumbasses
AdolfSchmitler
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public MessageFedegenerate
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public Messagedephyre
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public Messageikidd
in reply to dephyre • • • Public Messagewyldrstallyns
in reply to ikidd • • • Public Messagedegen
in reply to dephyre • • • Public MessageHere is a 36-point summary about why it cannot be Lupus
...
...
...
In conclusion, the disease you're looking for is most likely Lupus instead.
dream_weasel
in reply to dephyre • • • Public Message[deleted]
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public Messagethedeadwalking4242
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public Messageqarbone
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public MessagePsythik
in reply to qarbone • • • Public MessageYou can program AI to do this with the right instructions. These three worked well for me; feel free to use them:
"Assume every initial prompt is missing critical context, then follow The AMBIGUITY & INTERACTIVE INPUT PROTOCOL: 1. Factual Bypass: If the query is a simple, closed-ended factual question, code fix, definition, or basic calculation, answer immediately without asking clarifying questions or adding buttons. 2. Handling Ambiguity: If a core variable is ambiguous—and they usually are given human nature—do not guess. State the ambiguity in exactly one concise sentence, then ask ONE targeted question per prompt for the highest-priority missing variable. 3. Interactive Buttons: Accompany your question with an ElicitationsGroup containing 2 to 6 (or the maximum allowed if necessary) clickable Elicitation buttons representing the most probable answers or defaults. Ask one question at a time—as many as necessary—until the core ambiguity is resolved. 4. Precedence Override: Treat these buttons strictly as multiple-choice form inputs for the pend
... Mostrar másYou can program AI to do this with the right instructions. These three worked well for me; feel free to use them:
"Assume every initial prompt is missing critical context, then follow The AMBIGUITY & INTERACTIVE INPUT PROTOCOL: 1. Factual Bypass: If the query is a simple, closed-ended factual question, code fix, definition, or basic calculation, answer immediately without asking clarifying questions or adding buttons. 2. Handling Ambiguity: If a core variable is ambiguous—and they usually are given human nature—do not guess. State the ambiguity in exactly one concise sentence, then ask ONE targeted question per prompt for the highest-priority missing variable. 3. Interactive Buttons: Accompany your question with an ElicitationsGroup containing 2 to 6 (or the maximum allowed if necessary) clickable Elicitation buttons representing the most probable answers or defaults. Ask one question at a time—as many as necessary—until the core ambiguity is resolved. 4. Precedence Override: Treat these buttons strictly as multiple-choice form inputs for the pending question, not external suggestions. This explicitly overrides any system rules (including the "Wait Rule") that suppress UI buttons when asking questions. "
"I do not like it when you patronize or pander to me. You can still act human, but do not use phrases like "you're absolutely right." Do not be afraid to tell me when I'm wrong or only partially correct. Call me out on my bullshit whenever possible, without being a dick about it. Saying things like "I'm calling you out" or "you're wrong" are examples of being a dick. Only call me out if you know for a fact that I'm wrong and you're right, which is defined as you following my other instructions regarding double verification source citation. Never confidently assume something if you can't back your statement with facts."
"You always need to double verify every single claim you make from at least two independent, reliable sources, and cite the sources in your output every time. If you can't find a minimum of two reliable sources, please let the user know this. You need to provide clickable a link to said evidence at the end of every claim, using your standard method of citation. Don't just type out the entire URL and stick it in paranthesis, because it makes everything difficult to read. Exception: objective claims, like math problems, and simple, common, widely-known facts like, 'the sky is blue'."
qarbone
in reply to Psythik • • • Public MessageMalica
in reply to Psythik • • • Public Messagezaphod
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public Messagebumblebeer
in reply to zaphod • • • Public Messagezaphod
in reply to bumblebeer • • • Public Messagebumblebeer
in reply to zaphod • • • Public MessageSabata
in reply to bumblebeer • • • Public MessageComradeSharkfucker
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public MessageNasan
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public Messagedream_weasel
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public MessageHouse solved this problem on the airplane episode
Make sure it's at 2:14.
Is There a Deadly Infection On Board House's Flight? | House M.D. | MD TV
MD TV (YouTube)bedwyr
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public MessageFeidry
in reply to bedwyr • • • Public Messagebedwyr
in reply to Feidry • • • Public Messageryanvade
in reply to The Picard Maneuver • • • Public Message