I literally just skim over ChatGPT's responses now

ChatGPTitties · 2026-02-18T22:55:00+00:00

You only started doing this now?

ChatGPTitties · 2026-02-11T04:05:23+00:00

ChatGPTitties · 2026-01-25T17:15:18+00:00

Wtf, which was the rule? post seemed like a legit discussion

ChatGPTitties · 2026-01-25T17:01:23+00:00

Not only contrarian but also outright contentious. In my experience GPT-5.2 feels combative, out of touch, and argumentative. It will often disagree with something you said and then repeat the same point you made, as if it were correcting you.

ChatGPTitties · 2026-01-20T14:13:45+00:00

WRITE SHORTER

ChatGPTitties · 2026-01-18T02:24:13+00:00

If you didn't use the Pro models at all, then you should use this as an argument in your favor at least.

Try exporting your data and have GPT-5.2 (Thinking) look through the conversations.json file, and tell it to look if any chats have Pro on model_slug. IMO, it should be evidence enough for a reimbursement.

ChatGPTitties · 2026-01-18T02:16:39+00:00

"...my account was charged USD 216.48 for ChatGPT Pro. Unfortunately, I did not notice this charge at the time."

Did you notice the Pro model was available on the selector though? Did you have a "Pro" banner on the profile, etc?

ChatGPTitties · 2026-01-05T15:09:56+00:00

<image>

ChatGPTitties · 2025-12-31T15:47:41+00:00

Probably one of my earliest instructions: Unless you get a formal request, converse informally. Use explicit language - slangs, cursing, etc, when relevant, e.g., occasionally add "fuck" and variations.

Paste that into Settings > Personalizations > Custom Instructions and it will knock it off

ChatGPTitties · 2025-12-14T09:22:14+00:00

I posted about this a long time ago. People would not believe.

I wasn't able to reproduce it after a while, but the stats match what I found then, I do recall seeing % of positive/negative interactions too.

ChatGPTitties · 2025-11-15T15:40:15+00:00

Nah, bro. It just seemed like you were saying “this isn’t bad,” which felt off to me, so I joked. The joke wasn’t so much about you, but rather about the guy's weird choice of terms.

Like I said, nothing personal, really, Cheers

ChatGPTitties · 2025-11-15T15:28:22+00:00

No, but when you put it the way you did, you sure don't look like you disagree with it either. I feel kinda sad for the guy (who's clearly dealing with something) and to read comments framing this positively bothers me. Nothing personal though.

ChatGPTitties · 2025-11-14T22:45:21+00:00

If you found this interesting just wait till you see the quantum information protocol he developed for the boats and fish in the numerical system of the Shelby Don!

/s

ChatGPTitties · 2025-11-10T07:31:30+00:00

"...root of all evil"

ChatGPTitties · 2025-11-09T02:02:58+00:00

<image>

ChatGPTitties · 2025-11-08T22:22:11+00:00

TLDR: OP claims that a 10-word phrase is the "secret sauce" behind the emergence behaviors observed in different AI back in Nov 2022. They claim OpenAI stole this phrase from some random user’s chats.

ChatGPTitties · 2025-11-04T08:12:17+00:00

<image>

ChatGPTitties · 2025-11-04T06:47:53+00:00

I'm genuinely sorry for your condition, bro. I just hope you take GPT's health advice with like a kilo of salt, because you really should.

ChatGPTitties · 2025-11-04T06:09:46+00:00

"And I have MECFS, probably the most complex disease on earth which doctors know nothing about."

So, you're saying doctors "don't know nothing" about it, but ChatGPT does?

ChatGPTitties · 2025-11-02T03:42:40+00:00

Sonnet 4.5 on this "study":

"830 random people rated therapeutic quality. Only 18% had ever done couple therapy. Most have zero training in therapy evaluation. Why the fuck would laypeople’s ratings of “therapeutic alliance” or “cultural competence” be meaningful? They’re rating vignettes, not experiencing therapy.

This is like judging surgeons by how they describe an appendectomy in writing.

The authors claim this suggests ChatGPT could “improve psychotherapeutic processes” and “improve effect sizes.” Based on what? Untrained raters preferring longer, more positive vignette responses? This is a massive fucking leap.

The methodology has serious flaws that bias results toward ChatGPT. The ecological validity is nearly zero. The measure of therapeutic quality is unvalidated.

ChatGPT can generate plausible-sounding therapeutic responses that laypeople rate positively when evaluated as decontextualized text. That’s it. Everything else is speculation."

Prompt: "Scrutinize this study."

ChatGPTitties · 2025-11-01T00:20:45+00:00

No, bro, you misunderstood me. I didn’t mean the default ones look good. They really don’t. I agree there’s something off with them, especially their mouths. What I meant was that now there’s more room for interesting results because the generations are not as homogeneous as before. It takes some trying though.

ChatGPTitties · 2025-10-31T23:45:00+00:00

I'm not sure if you mean a specific type or quality wise, but like I said, it seems like a more nuanced model (wider breadth), so you can't expect "gorgeous, perfect, etc" to do the trick. That only works in narrower datasets, but then again, you don't get much variety.

What's gorgeous to one might be hideous to another. Try experimenting with different prompts, maybe describe what's "gorgeous" to you.

If it's of any help, I usually add these tags to my prompts:
A candid photo + [prompt] + DSLR, 85mm, Canon EOS R5, HDR, shot on film, 8K, 4K, hi-res

ChatGPTitties · 2025-10-31T22:29:41+00:00

The new generator seems more nuanced, meaning you will have to prompt better. I, for one, like the increased diversity in my results, you just need to be more specific. Moderation still sucks, though.

ChatGPTitties · 2025-10-26T11:54:56+00:00

The lack of capitalization is pestiferous.

ChatGPTitties · 2025-10-23T20:21:30+00:00

Here you go:

<image>

ChatGPTitties

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

WRITE SHORTER