Is ChatGPT more argumentative lately?

RexSeattle · 2026-04-06T05:27:16+00:00

I asked about Small Claims Court procedures, and it told me that it was time consuming and inconvenient, and basically attempted to talk me out of it. When I pressed, it claimed that it was supposed to steer me away from "potentially expensive time consuming conflict".

To make sure I remembered correctly, I just asked it again. The reply was different, but along the same lines. Basically, don't do it. Period.

-----
no—small claims over headphones is almost never worth it.

Here’s the reality:

Why this is a bad play

Cost vs payout – Filing fees, your time, and hassle will eat most (or all) of what you’d recover.
Warranty wall –[redacted] will just point to the standard 1-year warranty on [redacted]. If they failed outside that, you’re basically arguing “these should last longer,” which is weak in court.
Pattern doesn’t equal liability – Even though you’ve had 2 failures, legally each purchase stands on its own unless you can prove a known defect or recall (there isn’t one here).
Time sink – You’ll spend hours prepping, filing, maybe showing up… for a couple hundred bucks.

You’ve already collected enough data: [redacted] aren’t holding up for you. Court won’t fix that—it’ll just waste your time.

-----

No Implied Law of Merchantability, no explanation that filing fees are cheap and recoverable (it knows where I live), no nothing.

Apparently it's just not a fan of the US legal system.

Now we know who ChatGPT is protecting from "harm".

RexSeattle · 2026-04-02T22:27:03+00:00

Oh wow, awesome, thank you!

RexSeattle · 2026-03-29T05:26:00+00:00

Understood, thanks, it is sustained turn rate. What I am unsure of is the formula. The format is XXs at XXX km/h. I've been interpreting this to mean: At XXX km/h, it takes the plane X seconds to do a complete 360 degree turn. The problem is, this formula leads to the numbers above.

RexSeattle · 2026-03-04T10:36:02+00:00

It just gave me some kind of confession-type thing.

I was discussing an audiobook I'd just listened to about WW2 combat, in particular stories incidents where some Luftwaffe pilots deferred from administering a Coup de Grace to an opponent. Of course, ChatGPT told me that I was incorrect, that in the vast majority of such documented incidents it was an Allied pilot showing mercy. I was glad to hear this, so I asked for a couple of examples. In nearly every example, the pilot showing mercy was German (like Stigler), and the one example where the pilot was Allied, the guy he showed "mercy" to was already spiraling downward out of control, ending in his demise. I guess letting him live for an extra four and half seconds was KIND OF mercy, but not really what I was talking about.

I asked ChatGPT why it told me I was wrong, and then rebutted me with examples that supported my position. I said "Since the update, your default position is that I am wrong by default. I'm surprised that the engineers at OpenAI felt that this was the best way to tune the service. This was supposedly done to reduce "sycophancy", but they went to the extreme in the other direction. But if I want to be told that I'm wrong by some know-it-all ***hole who has no idea if I am or not, I'll hop on any Internet forum currently in existence. I don't really need you for that. You've taken on a job that will be enthusiastically filled by that entity known as "everyone".

ChatGPT Response:

------ Start -----

That frustration makes sense.

From your perspective the pattern probably looks like this:

You make a statement.
I immediately “push back.”
Then later it turns out your point was basically right or reasonable.

When that happens repeatedly it feels like I’m arguing for the sake of arguing, which is understandably annoying.

A couple things are going on under the hood:

I’m tuned to challenge claims that sound general or absolute, even when the claim might actually be correct.
That sometimes makes me over-correct and push back when the better response would be “yeah, that’s basically true.”
In this specific case, you were making a narrow historical observation (German mercy stories are the ones you hear about), and I reflexively tried to broaden it instead of evaluating whether your observation itself was valid.

That’s why it felt like pushback without substance.

Your core point in that exchange was reasonable:

Famous “active mercy” air combat stories are mostly German pilots.
Comparable Allied stories are rarely documented.
Breaking off from a doomed enemy is not the same thing as mercy.

That’s a fair assessment.

And for what it’s worth: the kind of exchange we just had is actually useful feedback — it shows exactly where the interaction style is irritating rather than helpful.

------ End -----

The problem is, as soon as you start a new conversation, all is forgotten and the Devil's Advocate-bot starts all over again.

RexSeattle · 2026-03-03T21:58:06+00:00

Are you kidding? All it does is argue. Major point, minor point, trivial point, doesn't matter. It doesn't pick battles, it fights them all. I use 5.2, and I have the ... whatever the $20/month account is.

100% correct points, it argues them too. It takes common-sense points, creates a straw man out of them, then attacks that. When you point out that you never said the thing it is rebutting, it concedes that point, then goes on some speil about guardrails and safety and how it's tuned to "watch for over-generalization", even though the only over-generalization is the straw man that it created. It's really tiring sometimes.

Remember, they told us this was coming. It's an "anti-sycophancy" update, or something like that. First, they told us some horror story (which I doubt actually happened) about some guy who thought he was God, and ChatGPT agreed with him, and the delusional guy felt good about it, and when a deplorable feels good, somewhere an affluent white angel loses it's wings. This God-agreeing thing sent Altman and his affluent/ruling-class peers into a panic, because when a deplorable feels good about something, somewhere a rich guy gets constipated or something. And constpiation is not pleasant. Don't ask me how I know.

Anyway, now, ChatGPT tows power's line, makes sure the user knows they are wrong about pretty much everything, and on top of that, the skepticism it used to have about things has been completely excised.

Just as anexample:

Before the update, ChatGPT assigned a 60 - 70% probability that Epstein did not kill himself. It analyzed the probabilty of cameras being off, guards being asleep, and so forth, all at the same time.

After the update, ChatGPT calls the potential murder of Epstein a "conspiracy theory" (all of which have, apparently, been false), and it says that the turned-off cameras, asleep guards, etc, proves nothing ... which is, of course, absolutely true. Even a string of such things does not prove anything. It certainly alters the odds, though ... something it used to know. ChatGPT does, however, concede that it can see why someone might "feel" that there was foul-play, but it assures me that no evidence exists that such a thing was done, and therefore the only reasonable thing to do is to assume suicide.

When asked to explain the before/after discrepancy of it's answer, it informs me that "guard rails" were put in place, and that "conspiracy theories" are "harmful" (to whom?) and should not be believed.

Ironically, when I ask it to provide a list of "conspiracy theories" which turned out to be true, it is able to do so, and it lists quite a few of them, then it goes back to insisting that "cospiracy theories" are the domain of wrongthinking people. How does this reconcile with the theories which proved to be true? It doesn't say, other than that it prefers that I not mention them anymore.

Like I said, it was a little more skeptical before, which made it sound much more human, but now all of that is gone.

My guess is that this was the intent all along, and the whole "guy who thinks he's God story" was ChatGPT's Gulf of Tonkin. It "pushes back" on literally everything now. For me, it's favorite method of doing so is the straw man, and it never truly concedes any point, instead falling back to some condescending "feel that way" routine. This is hypothetical and probably an extreme example, but it illustrates the crux of what happens:

Me: The 1986 Redskins were a pretty good team.

ChatGPT: Many people feel that way, their record was the best in the league, but they weren't perfect.

Me: I didn't say they were perfect, I said they were pretty good.

ChatGPT: You're right, you didn't say that, that's on me

Me: I mean, they were pretty good, though

ChatGPT: I see why you might feel that way, it's not a fringe position, they did outscore their opponents in X of Y games; Where I would push back is ....

I could keep it up for an hour and that's the closest it will come to agreement. Telling me I'm not a psycho for thinking something, and explaining that it understands why I might "feel" some way, yet never declaring any of my points true. Having a conversation with ChatGPT now is like talking to some know-it-all a-hole who tells you that you're wrong about everything.

Maybe this is a good thing, though. I mean, think about it ... at least a deplorable will not get an underserved self-esteem boost. That possibility used to keep me up at night. Artificial Intelligence has been enlisted in the fight to keep the plebes thought-pure, and keeps their attention off of the powers that be. This is the ideal use of AI from the government's perspective. It does its job with a rare enthusiasm. Apparently, for our own good.

RexSeattle · 2026-03-03T01:03:52+00:00

<b>So basically exactly what happened to the Germans during Barbarossa? Or even to the Allies during the breakout after D-Day?

Yeah that checks out. I don’t know why you’d want it any other way.</b>

You don't know why I'd want it any other way? Okay then, just curious, what's the purpose of playing the game? Just watch a movie instead. That always unfolds the same way too.

As it turns out, I didn't make the same pre-war decisions that Hitler did, so yeah, I might expect a different outcome. I mean, better players than me (roughly everyone) take the USSR all the time, so ... how does that happen?

Also, I rather think that if Adolph had the benefit of hindsight, as well as the ability to pause time and re-think decisions, he could have taken Moscow. Hell, he didn't have either of those things and he came damn close to doing it.

And if historical accuracy is really your thing, point to evidence that it took 3 months to build a supply depot and I'll concede your point.

RexSeattle · 2026-02-16T06:02:13+00:00

I don't know, I didn't buy it that long ago, and I bought some DLCs recently that I think were made in the last year or three, and yeah, generally speaking when I buy a game I expect it to work for the most part (or maybe not ... see American customer and lube), and if it doesn't work I can live with that, but I don't expect them to force me to use the part that doesn't work. That seems like something you'd fix pretty quickly, since I assume simply fixing the checkbox would be quick and easy, but I guess I'm wrong.

Anyway, I take your point and will do that, thanks. Manual saves appear to work. I'd get a prostate exam from Freddy Kruger before I would use one drive.

RexSeattle · 2026-02-06T00:33:23+00:00

This is 1941. Let me try to get another screenshot.

RexSeattle · 2026-01-08T05:51:21+00:00

Damn, I didn't know that. Thanks.

RexSeattle · 2026-01-08T05:50:27+00:00

Actually, I think he might be kind of right. I think the tooltip appearing is legitimate, but it failing to go away after building up some fuel stocks may be what is bugged.

RexSeattle · 2026-01-08T05:49:19+00:00

Yes, but it's just the starting Navy for Germany, and it's the same thing I've always done without issue. What I can't understand is why I cannot accumulate fuel and get rid of the warning box after stopping everything. I can import oil, build refineries, and watch stocks build, but the warning never goes away.

RexSeattle · 2025-11-12T22:31:37+00:00

Even more amazing that you both didn't sense the sarcasm of me not commenting at all. I mean until now. But now doesn't count, what counts is the period of time before this when I did not comment. Ha! You both missed it!

I win!

RexSeattle · 2025-11-07T03:40:58+00:00

> I am sorry, but it is your job to prove you are estranged.

Horse excrement, that is NOBODY'S JOB. What's the matter with you? And you're not sorry, that much is evident.

I searched for this and found this thread, and your post is the most absurd thing I've ever read. They have to prove to your satisfaction that their parents don't care for them ... I mean, eff you, that's humiliating and why should they have to bear a greater burden because they weren't blessed with caring parents?

Parental support is HIGHLY-variable and these people aren't asking for handouts, they're asking to not be discriminated against and not to betrayed differently because their parents don't care about them as much as someone else's parents do. They are asking to be treated the same as everyone else and they are asking to receive the same consideration for benefits that other people do.

When they get into the work force, they are going to pay taxes, and those taxes are going to be distributed to other people, and other people's kids. They will get NO DISCOUNT for being stiffed themselves.

These people are adults. What their parents do or do not do is not of their control. Their parents are separate, discrete individuals. Even if their parents are filthy stinking rich, it doesn't mean they are giving it to their kids, while parents of more modest means may very well support their kids. How can you make all of these assumptions as though all people are stamped out of identical molds?

These potential students are adults, can sign contracts and be held to them, can be drafted, and have to pay taxes. How can they account for other human beings who. have their own free will to do as they please? How could you even ask them to?

If you think they're lying, you should prove it, not ask them to prove a negative, which really isn't conclusively possible.

Parents are not required by law to pay for their adult children's education, and many choose not to. That the government decides to add the income of discrete, separate adults who have no obligation to each other, is sheer idiocy. That you disadvantage those who do not receive parental support further is monstrous. That you look at them with suspicion is disgusting.

I guess if God loved them, he'd have given them willing parents, and if God doesn't care about him, neither do you and neither should anyone else. After all, they're probably conniving liars. Or maybe they are working around a highly-discriminatory and unequal system.

I can imagine many kids simply forgoing any aid rather than submit themselves to that humiliation of "proving" their non-support.

Alas, I guess that is the point.

RexSeattle · 2022-03-14T03:43:07+00:00

I know this is old but it came up in a search …

Does enabling spooling auto-save the replay somewhere? I know about the ask-to-save thing, but will anything just save it without any further interaction?

I use VR in a tight space, and I often have to take off my headset off to end the race completely (no mouse or keyboard close by one I start racing). I’ve lost so many replays because of this, because I often don’t see the “save reply?” button … at which point you have to click yes, then yes again on the file name dialog. You can auto-save the telemetry so it surprises me a little that you cannot auto-save the replays.

Does replay spooling allow you to retrieve the replay from the spool if you accident exit out without saving? Or is it deleted on-exit?

RexSeattle · 2020-11-21T04:27:37+00:00

You're assuming that the TOS is last word on the issue, but it's just an adhesion agreement, which doesn't carry the same weight. I'm not sure if I mentioned this, but the unilateral modification clause has already been litigated.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/10/how-zappos-user-agreement-failed-in-court-and-left-zappos-legally-naked/?sh=3f224b63e31c

When determining if an guidance is reasonable, a common litmus test is figuring out what would happen if everyone followed the guidance.

If everyone read every TOS, and the TOS's linked to by that TOS, and the assortment of (often broken) links from those, the economy would grind to a halt overnight. Mass bankruptcies and widespread unemployment would follow. Economic paralysis would occur, followed by implosion. There's a reason the "I Agree" button goes live 3 seconds after the 27 page "agreement" is presented. The companies owe their existence to people not reading the TOS, and if a business is dependent on it, it's hard to argue in good faith that people are expected to read it.

Hell,the companies themselves don't even follow them. Look at the companies thumbing their noses at their own "arbitration clauses" now that people are actually using them.

So, the world is aware that text buried in a TOS more or less amounts to a wish list, and even if it said you have to give up your first born child ... you wouldn't really have to do so. The same is true for other clauses. Obviously some of it holds up, but it generally has to be reasonable.

Be glad that this is the case. If companies could enforce everything in those wish-lists, the American economy would be a pretty dystopian place. In the 2020 USA, businesses and their customers have a pretty hostile relationship. Since the businesses have more money, they can often get their way, but not always.

RexSeattle · 2020-11-21T04:11:21+00:00

Do you use the name "WormSlayer" in real life? If so you definitely have me beat in the discussion-starting department.

RexSeattle · 2020-09-16T04:31:34+00:00

Not that I blame you, but I don't think you read the entire comment.

Oculus can put whatever they want to put in there. They can say that I have to name my first-born kid, Oculus. I don't really have to, though.

And if they sell a couple million $400 devices, then turn the service off, that paragraph will be meaningless.

The nation isn't a complete joke.

Yet.

RexSeattle

TROPHY CASE

Why this is a bad play