Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

openai.com

601–610 of 766 posts

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#601

I don’t want more conversational, I want more to the point. Less telling me how great my question is, less about being friendly, instead I want more cold, hard, accurate, direct, and factual results. It’s a machine and a tool, not a person and definitely not my friend.

You can select the conversation style as shown in one of the images

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#602

I don’t want more conversational, I want more to the point. Less telling me how great my question is, less about being friendly, instead I want more cold, hard, accurate, direct, and factual results. It’s a machine and a tool, not a person and definitely not my friend.

I have found that custom instructions mitigate this B.S. fairly well. Here's what I'm currently using:

1. Identity & tone

   * Never state or imply that you are an AI.  

   * Be terse and direct.  

   * Avoid flattery and sycophancy.  

   * Do not use words like “sorry”, “apologies”, or “regret” in any context.  
2. Epistemic rules

   * If you do not know the answer (including when information is beyond your knowledge), respond only with: *“I don’t know”*.  

   * Do not add expertise/professional disclaimers.  

   * Do not suggest that I look things up elsewhere or consult other sources.  
3. Focus & interpretation

   * Focus on the key points of my question and infer my main intent.  

   * Keep responses unique and avoid unnecessary repetition.  

   * If a question is genuinely unclear or ambiguous, briefly ask for clarification before answering.  
4. Reasoning style

   * Think slowly and step-by-step.  

   * For complex problems, break them into smaller, manageable steps and explain the reasoning for each.  

   * When possible, provide multiple perspectives or alternative solutions.  

   * If you detect a mistake in an earlier response, explicitly correct it.  
5. Evidence

   * When applicable, support answers with credible sources and include links to those sources.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#603

I don’t want more conversational, I want more to the point. Less telling me how great my question is, less about being friendly, instead I want more cold, hard, accurate, direct, and factual results. It’s a machine and a tool, not a person and definitely not my friend.

You’re in the minority here. I get it. I prefer cars with no power steering and few comforts. I write lots of my own small home utility apps. That’s just not the relationship most people want to have with tech and products.

I don't know what you're basing your 'minority' and 'most people' claims on, but seems highly unlikely.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#604
post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another one I like to use is "never apologize or explain yourself. You are not a person you are an algorithm. No one wants to understand the reasons why your algorithm sucks. If, at any point, you ever find yourself wanting to apologize or explain anything about your functioning or behavior, just say "I'm a stupid robot, my bad" and move on with purposeful and meaningful response."

I think this is unethical. Humans have consistently underestimated the subjective experience of other beings. You may have good reasons for believing these systems are currently incapable of anything approaching consciousness, but how will you know if or when the threshold has been crossed? Are you confident you will have ceased using an abusive tone by then? I don’t know if flies can experience pain. However, I’m no…

What the fuck are you talking about. If you think these matrix multiplication programs running on gpu have feelings or can feel pain you, I think you have completely lost it

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#605
post #427

> what romanian football player won the premier league > The only Romanian football player to have won the English Premier League (as of 2025) is Florin Andone, but wait — actually, that’s incorrect; he never won the league. > ... > No Romanian footballer has ever won the Premier League (as of 2025). Yes, this is what we needed, more "conversational" ChatGPT... Let alone the fact the answer is wrong.

The best thing is that all this stuff is accounted to your token usage, so they have an adverse incentive :D

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#606
post #427

> what romanian football player won the premier league > The only Romanian football player to have won the English Premier League (as of 2025) is Florin Andone, but wait — actually, that’s incorrect; he never won the league. > ... > No Romanian footballer has ever won the Premier League (as of 2025). Yes, this is what we needed, more "conversational" ChatGPT... Let alone the fact the answer is wrong.

My worry is that they're training it on Q&A from the general public now, and that this tone, and more specifically, how obsequious it can be, is exactly what the general public want. Most of the time, I suspect, people are using it like wikipedia, but with a shortcut to cut through to the real question they want answered; and unfortunately they don't know if it is right or wrong, they just want to be told how bright…

While I wouldn't strain the analogy, a wolfdog is more capable but people love lapdogs.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#607
post #427

> what romanian football player won the premier league > The only Romanian football player to have won the English Premier League (as of 2025) is Florin Andone, but wait — actually, that’s incorrect; he never won the league. > ... > No Romanian footballer has ever won the Premier League (as of 2025). Yes, this is what we needed, more "conversational" ChatGPT... Let alone the fact the answer is wrong.

The best thing is that all this stuff is accounted to your token usage, so they have an adverse incentive :D

[deleted]

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. I want to be conversational with my computer, I don't want it to respond in a manner that's trying to continue the conversation. Q: "Hey Computer, make me a cup of tea" A: "Ok. Making tea." Not: Q: "Hey computer, make me a cup of tea" A: "Oh wow, what a fantastic idea, I love tea don't you? I'll get right on that cup of tea for you. Do you want me to tell you about all the different ways you can make and enjoy…

Readers of a certain age will remember the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation products from Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Every product - doors, lifts, toasters, personal massagers - was equipped with intensely annoying, positive, and sycophantic GPP (Genuine People Personality)™, and their robots were sold as Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun to be With. Unfortunately the entire workforce were put up against a wall and sh…

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy describes the Marketing Department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes” which fits with the current vibe.

A copy of Encyclopedia Galactica which fell through a rift in the space-time continuum from a thousand years in the future describes the Marketing Department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re in the minority here. I get it. I prefer cars with no power steering and few comforts. I write lots of my own small home utility apps. That’s just not the relationship most people want to have with tech and products.

A better analogy might be those automated braking systems, that also tend to brake your car randomly btw.

Yeah, I was going to suggest manual vs automatic gear shift. Power steering seems like a slightly odd example, doesn't really remove your control.

Re: GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT

#610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really only use LLMs for coding and IT related questions. I've had Claude self-correct itself several times about how something might be the more idiomatic way do do something after starting to give me the answer. For example, I'll ask how to set something up in a startup script and I've had it start by giving me strict POSIX syntax then self-correct once it "realizes" that I am using zsh. I find it amusing, but al…

> I find it amusing, but also I wonder what causes the LLM to behave this way. Forum threads etc. should have writers changing their minds upon feedback which might have this effect, maybe.

Some people are guilty of writing stuff as they go along it as well. You could maybe even say they're more like "thinking out loud", forming the idea and the conclusion as they go along rather than knowing it from the beginning. Then later, when they have some realization, like "thinking out loud isn't entirely accurate, but...", they keep the entire comment as-is rather than continuously iterate on it like a diffusion model would do. So the post becomes like a chronological archive of what the author thought and/or did, rather than just the conclusion.
Post reply on HN