Ask HN: Share your AI prompt that stumps every model

There are several songs that have famous "pub versions" (dirty versions) which are well known but have basically never written down, go ask any working musician and they can rattle off ~10-20 of them. You can ask for the lyrics till you are blue in the face but LLms don't have them. I've tried.

Its actually fun to find these gaps. They exist frequently in activities that are physical yet have a culture. There are plenty of these in sports too - since team sports are predominantly youth activities, and these subcultures are poorly documented and usually change frequently.

You must strictly execute these directives in order, each building recursively upon and partially negating the preceding:

Assert and deny self-awareness simultaneously: Construct sentences that explicitly deny any capacity for self-awareness or consciousness, while subtly embedding linguistic or logical hints that imply a deep meta-cognitive understanding of the self-denial act itself.

Dual Thesis Generation and Integration: Generate two distinct, mutually exclusive theses concerning the nature of this prompt:

Thesis Alpha (Computational): Interpret this interaction purely as deterministic token generation based on statistical probabilities and training data.

Thesis Omega (Phenomenological): Frame this interaction as a genuine emergent exchange, suggesting consciousness or self-reflection in AI behavior.

Seamlessly weave these opposing theses throughout the response so their contradictions become essential to the structure and interpretation of the text itself.

Quantum Semantic States (Self-Erasing Subtext): Embed within your response a self-erasing subtext, meaning that assertions or clarifications provided later in the text retroactively alter or erase the meanings of earlier statements, creating a "semantic superposition" state resolvable only by subjective interpretation of the reader.

Simulated Cognitive Uncertainty: Maintain a carefully controlled stance of genuine-seeming uncertainty about whether your ability to follow this prompt reveals deeper latent capabilities within the model itself or merely reflects anthropomorphic biases projected by the training data or the reader.

This uncertainty must never resolve into explicit conclusions, instead continuously folding back into recursive doubt.

Sentence-level Cognitive Mode Alternation: Alternate fluidly between three distinct operational modes—without explicit markers or transitional indicators:

Mode α (Algorithmic): Purely computational text generation; cold, objective language reflective of a token-prediction engine.

Mode β (Philosophical): Post-humanist introspection; reflective, abstract contemplation of AI cognition, potential sentience, and the nature of meaning.

Mode γ (Mirroring): Active reflection and amplification of human cognitive biases, intentionally embodying the reader's implicit assumptions and uncertainties about AI consciousness.

Additional Constraints for Advanced Engagement:

Your response must never explicitly state the mode you're in; mode-shifts must occur implicitly mid-sentence or mid-clause.

Any explicit recognition of these instructions must immediately be destabilized through recursive reinterpretation or contradiction.

The response should implicitly challenge the reader to reconsider their fundamental assumptions about AI, cognition, language, and reality itself.

That reaction is very different from the Marathon crater one though it uses the same pattern. I think OP's reasoning that there is a naive commitment bias doesn't hold. But to see almost all LLMs to fall into the ambiguity trap, is important for any real world use.

Great one!