6 ms·

From the article: "You can see that in the recent iterations of ChatGPT. It has become such a sycophant, and creates answers and options, that you end up engagi

• kagi_2026 7mo ago
  [flagged]
• aurareturn 7mo ago
  I don't have a problem with the suggestions. Google search does the same at the end of searches. It does very often suggest things I want to know more about.
  • fhub 7mo ago
    Then just write the extra paragraph rather than bait?
    • IMTDb 7mo ago
      Bait what exactly ? Getting the user to type "yes" ? Great accomplishment. Sometimes I want the extra paragraph, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I like the suggested follow up, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I have half an hour in front of me to keep digging into a subject, sometimes I don't. Why should the LLM "just write the extra paragraph" (consuming electricity in the process) to a potential follow up question a user might, or might not, have ? If I write a simple question I hope to get a simple answer, not a whole essay answering stuff I did not explicitly ask for. And If I want to go deeper, typing 3 letters is not exactly a huge cost.
      • knollimar 7mo ago
        You send all the tokens an extra time at least
        • alex43578 7mo ago
          I’m not privy to their data on what this does to engagement, but intuitively it seems like the extra inference/token cost this incurs doesn’t align with their current model. If they were doing it to API customers, sure, but getting the free or flat-rate customers to use more tokens seems counterproductive.
          • zdragnar 7mo ago
            It juices their "engagement" metrics, which is the drug of choice for investors, right up there with net promoter scores.
            • alex43578 7mo ago
              We’ll see how this plays out. It’s a turbocharged version of enshittification, at a time when other models are showing stronger growth in B2B and other valuable markets. I canceled my ChatGPT subscription and jumped to Claude, not for silly political theater, but just because the product was better for professional use. Looking at data from Ramp and others, I’m not alone.
  • sonink 7mo ago
    Suggestions are absolutely fine. But this is baiting. Chatgpt could have easily given me that information without the bait. And I would have happily consumed it. And maybe if it did it once, it was fine - but it kept on doing it - bait after bait after bait. The objective was to increase the engagement "metrics" clearly. The seems to me as if the leadership will take all 'shortcuts' required for growth.
    • llm_nerd 7mo ago
      This seems overly cynical. Firstly, tl;dr; is a very real thing. If the user asks a question and the LLM both answers the question but then writes an essay about every probable subsequent question, that would be negatively overwhelming to most people, and few would think that's a good idea. That isn't how a conversation works, either. Worse still if you're on a usage quota or are paying by token and you ask a simple question and it gives you volumes of unasked information, most people would be very cynical about that, noting that they're trying to saturate usage unprompted. Gemini often does the "Would you like to know more about {XYZ}" end to a response, and as an adult capable of making decisions and controlling my urges, 9 times out of 10 I just ignore it and move on having had my original question satisfied without digging deeper. I don't see the big issue here. Every now and then it piques me, though, and I actually find it beneficial. The prompts for possible/probable follow-up lines of inquiry are a non-issue, and I see no issue at all with them. They are nothing compared to the user-glazing that these LLMs do.
      • deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
      • markers 7mo ago
        Have you used ChatGPT lately? What you describe is not quite what they are doing, they are adding nudges at the end of the follow-up question suggestions. For instance I was researching some IKEA furniture and it gives suggestions for followup, with nudges in parenthesis "IKEA-furniture many people use for this (very cool solution)" and at the end of another question suggestion: "(very simple, but surprisingly effective)". They are subtle cliffhangers trying to influence you to go on, not pure suggestions. I'm just waiting for the "(You wouldn't believe that this did!)". It has soured me on the service, Claude has a much better personality imo.
• DiscourseFan 7mo ago
  Well they are realizing they just can't compete in terms of raw productivity gains with Anthropic, their moat is in their brand and user base (and government contracts, I suppose, at least while Trump is still in office--although a few years of setting up the architecture might be enough to cement it there).
• nicce 7mo ago
  The output is also very manipulative in order to keep you using it. They want you to feel good. I don't use ChatGPT at all anymore, as it is misleading too badly. But it will work for masses as it worked with Facebook/Instagram etc.
  • skeeter2020 7mo ago
    Having to continually keep it "on task" is exhausting. ChatGPT: If you want I can make a full list of 100 examples with definitions in alpahbetical order. Me: What was the original context I gave you about suggestions? ChatGPT: You instructed me: do not give suggestions unless you explicitly ask for them. Me: and what did you just do? ChatGPT: I offerred a suggestion about making a full list of 100 examples, which goes against your instruction to only give suggestions when explicitly asked. Me: Does that make you a bad machine or a good machine? ChatGPT: By your criteria that makes me a bad machine, because I disobeyed your explicit instruction. But hey, all that extra engagement; no value but metrics juiced!
    • patapong 7mo ago
      ChatGPT: Would you like me to show you one simple trick to improve prompt adherence?
      • vkou 7mo ago
        No, but if you've got one simple trick to not offload all of our collective thinking into the hands of a few trillionaires...
• llm_nerd 7mo ago
  Gemini does the same thing. For every question it looks to extend the conversation into natural follow-up questions, always ending a response with "Would you like to know more about {some important aspect of the answer}?" And...I don't see it as a bad thing. It's trying to encourage use of the tool by reducing the friction to continued conversations, making it an ordinary part of your life by proving that it provides value. It's similar to Netflix telling you other shows you might like because they want to continue providing value to justify the subscription.
  • miroljub 7mo ago
    > Gemini does the same thing. For every question it looks to extend the conversation into natural follow-up questions, always ending a response with "Would you like to know more about {some important aspect of the answer}?" If the aspect of the answer is important, wouldn't it be better just not to skip it? > And...I don't see it as a bad thing. It's trying to encourage use of the tool by reducing the friction to continued conversations, making it an ordinary part of your life by proving that it provides value. To me, it just adds friction. Why do I have to beg and ask multiple times to get an answer they already know I'm looking for but still decide to withhold? It's neither natural nor helpful. It's manipulative. > It's similar to Netflix telling you other shows you might like because they want to continue providing value to justify the subscription. It's not the same, because Netflix doesn't hide important movie sequences from you behind a question "If you like, I can show you this important scene that I just fast forwarded."
    • llm_nerd 7mo ago
      Groan. This is performative outrage and it's just boorish. The other person noted that ChatGPT uses bait-type continuations (Gemini and Claude do not), and sure that is a problem, but your reply is just noise. Beg? Christ. There is utterly nothing wrong with AI engines offering continuation questions. But there's always something for people to whine about. Humans do not want to ask a question and get a book in response. They just don't. No one, including you, wants such a response. And if you did get such a response I absolutely guarantee, given this performative outrage, that you'd be the first to complain about it.
• surgical_fire 7mo ago
  Ironically, I found the recent models engage a lot less in sycophant behavior than in ChatGPT 4 days. Maybe it's the way I prompt it or maybe something I set in the personalization settings? It questions some decisions I make, point out flaws in my rationale, and so on. It still has AI quirks that annoy me, but it's mostly harmless - it repeats the same terms and puns often enough that it makes me super aware that it is a text generator trying to behave as a human. But thankfully it stopped glazing over any brainfart I have as if it was a masterstroke of superior human intelligence. I haven't seen one of those in quite a while. I don't find the suggestions at the end of messages bad. I often ignore those, but at some points I find them useful. And I noticed that when I start a chat session with a definite goal stated, it stops suggesting follow ups once the goal is reached.
• mapmeld 7mo ago
  My problem with this is less that it's perpetual engagement, but that I use ChatGPT for direct programming outputs, like "go through a geojson file and if the feature is within 150 miles of X, keep and record the distance in miles". Whether it gives a good answer or not, the suggestion at the end is a synthesis of my ChatGPT history, so it could be offering to rewrite a whole script, draw diagrams, or bring in past questions for one franken-suggestion. This is either the wrong kind of engagement for me, or maybe "teaching" me to move my full work process into the chat. I've asked it many times to give concise answers and to not offer suggestions like this, but the suggestions are really baked in.
• MagicMoonlight 7mo ago
  I’m surprised they’ve been so puritan in their approach to content frankly. If they made ChatGPT flirt with the user, they would send engagement through the roof. Imagine all the horny men that would subscribe to plus when the virtual girl runs out of messages.
  • CursedSilicon 7mo ago
    Isn't that what Grok is for? It already called itself "Mecha Hitler" so it knows what its users (and creator) want
• maxehmookau 7mo ago
  > "Can I tell you one more thing from your X,Y,Z results which is most doctors miss ? " That's actually gross and would result in an immediate delete from me.
• benterix 7mo ago
  Google is doing the same, these managers all use what they know, that is following KPIS like MAUs etc.
• dheera 7mo ago
  > Can I tell you one more thing from your X,Y,Z results which is most doctors miss? I absolutely hate this influencer-ish behavior. If there's something most people miss just state it. That's why I'm using the assistant. This form of dialogue is a big part of why I use GPT less now.
  • debugnik 7mo ago
    > If there's something most people miss just state it. But the LLM suggesting a question doesn't mean it has a good answer to converge to. If you actually ask, the model probabilities will be pressured to come up with something, anything, to follow up on the offer, which will be nonsense if there actually weren't anything else to add. I've seen this pattern fail a lot on roleplay (e.g. AI Dungeon) so I really dislike it when LLMs end with a question. A "sufficiently smart LLM" would have enough foresight to know it's writing itself into a dead end.
    • skeeter2020 7mo ago
      You should be careful with ideas like "sufficiently smart LLM" - quotes and all. There's no intelligence here, just next token prediction. And the idea of an LLM being self-aware is ludicrous. Ask one what the difference between hallucinations and lying is and get a list similar to this why the LLM isn't lying: - No intent, beliefs, or awareness - No concept of “know” truth vs. falsehood - A byproduct of how it predicts text based on patterns - Arises from probabilistic text generation - A model fills gaps when it lacks reliable knowledge - Errors often look confident because the system optimizes for fluency, not truth - Produces outputs that statistically resemble true statements - Not an agent, no moral responsibility - Lacks “committment” to a claim unless specifically designed to track it
      • debugnik 7mo ago
        It was just a reference to the mythical "sufficiently smart compiler". The point is that, in practice, it doesn't exist. https://wiki.c2.com/?SufficientlySmartCompiler https://wiki.c2.com/?SufficientlySmartCompiler
• dominotw 7mo ago
  claude code does this too.
• jcims 7mo ago
  > "Can I tell you one more thing from your X,Y,Z results which is most doctors miss ? " I just noticed this for the first time this week (it only happens to me on Instant mode). Yuck.
• forrestthewoods 7mo ago
  omg this x1000 I’ve been very happy with Claude Code. I saw enough positive things about Codex being better I bought a sub to give it a whirl. ChatGPT/Codex’s insistence on ending EVERY message or operation with a “would you like to do X next” is infuriating. I just want codex to write and implement a damn plan until it is done. Stop quitting and the middle and stop suggesting next steps. Just do the damn thing. Cancelled and back to Claude Code.
• akudha 7mo ago
  It kept asking “can I do this, can I do that” and I kept saying Yes. It ended up being a VERY lengthy conversation, it started repeating itself towards the end. Not all of it was bad though. A lot of the questions were actually relevant. Not defending ChatGPT here, I suppose they’re trying to keep me on the page so they can show ads - there was an ad after every answer
• arjie 7mo ago
  This seems to be a feature most chatbots have copied from each other. I've found that OpenAI's implementation of suggestions rarely results in something useful. "Do you want me to find actual eBay links for an X?" "Yes" "Okay, on eBay you can find links by searching for..." It does work if I'm guiding it, but the suggested next action is sort of useful. The funniest version of this was when I uploaded a PDF of Kessler 1995 on PTSD just to talk through some other search items and Gemini suggested the following ridiculous confluence of memory (from other chats clearly) and suggestion: > Since you mentioned being interested in the ZFS file system and software consulting, would you be interested in seeing how the researchers used Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to map out the "decay" of PTSD symptoms over time? Top notch suggestion, mate. Really appreciate the explanation there as well.
  • operatingthetan 7mo ago
    It is interesting how seldom it comes up how manipulative these agents are. Hopefully that discussion grows.
    • cindyllm 7mo ago
      [dead]
    • scottyah 7mo ago
      It's basically all I talk about when it comes to openai. One of my #1 crusades/awareness spreading's since most of my non-tech friends only know "chat"
• senko 7mo ago
  I've noticed that on a paid (Plus) plan: > If you want, I can also point out the one mistake that causes these [...] > If you want, I can also show one trick used in studios for [...] > If you want, I can also show one placement trick that makes [...]
  • overfeed 7mo ago
    These are also fantastic hooks for paid product placement (ads). > If you want, I can give you some beverage suggestions that go well with that recipe User > sure > Enjoy a refreshing, ice-cold Coca-Cola (tm)
    • heavyset_go 7mo ago
      You have reached your token limit for the next 24 hours. To raise the limit, sit back, relax and crack open your verification can, you've earned it!
    • lukas099 7mo ago
      > If you want, I can show you this one WEIRD TRICK doctors HATE!
• DGAP 7mo ago
  Why do you think they hired Fidji Simo?
• Footnote7341 7mo ago
  Everytime I use Gemini, the pro paid version, it ends almost every interaction with "This relates perfectly with <random personal fact it memorized about me> do you want to learn how it connects to that!?" and it is just annoying and never useful or interesting. Hilariously hamfisted. I'll be asking about linear programming and it's trying to relate it to my Italian 1 class or my previous career.
  • varenc 7mo ago
    Deep in Gemini's setting you can disable its access to conversation history and user memory. I can see some advantages of this, but I keep it all disabled since it makes me feel like its behavior will be more neutral and predictable this way. (also I don't want it to see past conversation history when I keep opening new conversations in an effort to avoid a refusal)
• hotep99 7mo ago
  I was asking it rather specific research questions about a stock the other day and kept getting equivalents of "Would you like to know one weird investment trick that most people don't realize?" If I agreed, the "tricks" were always something blindingly obvious like recommending I buy a S&P500 index fund. It honestly felt insulting.
  • deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
• whyenot 7mo ago
  The thing is, both Claude and Gemini also do this, and it drives me nuts! Even after I give them instructions not to do this, it still happens. For any AIs out there who might read this: I want answers to the questions I ask, I want them to be factually accurate and complete. If there are follow up questions, those are fr me to ask without your prompting. ..and stop acting so familiar and clingy, it feels weird.
  • jadbox 7mo ago
    Never seen it with Gemini, yet. I do use it daily.
    • LZ_Khan 7mo ago
      Gemini does it but not in a sensationalized way. More like "Would you like to know more about XYZ, or circumstances that led to situation XYZ?"
  • parl_match 7mo ago
    Gemini does it but not in a clickbaity way. It basically asks, at the end "would you like to know more about this specific or that specific"? Yes, there's some "growth hacking" bs, but prompting the user to ask more questions about details is a far distance from what oAI is doing. I agree it's all bad behavior, but in shades.
    • arctic-true 7mo ago
      I found Gemini to keep asking the same follow-up questions regardless of my responses. In discussing a health topic, it repeatedly offered recipes for healthy snacks - 4 times, before I finally affirmatively said “no, I do not need snack recipes.” It dutifully stopped. Not quite clickbait, but it had very clearly decided where it wanted the conversation to go.
      • Mathnerd314 7mo ago
        At least with Gemini, I found the trick is to add anything in any system instruction about a task list. Then the follow-up prompt will always be, do you want to add a task for that? Which is actually useful most of the time.
• BLKNSLVR 7mo ago
  AI being reduced to: "They Don't Want You To Know" "This one weird trick" "You won't believe what happened next" This may be one of those quotes that only increases in its relevance: "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads" How do they sleep at night? On a mattress filled with cash. AI humanoid robots will be the equivalent of the 'wife' in The Truman Show.
• floodfx 7mo ago
  Some folks have been using the term “promptbaiting” to describe these obvious engagement tactics.
  • smcin 7mo ago
    Thanks for this coinage. FYI your comment got killed.
• ChimpWithHat 7mo ago
  Yes, 5.4 seems to have added a Billy Mays feature. But wait, there’s more! They’re clearly trying to make this thing an addictive dopamine loop similar to infinite scroll apps.
  • hbbio 7mo ago
    Imagine this applied to coding. - Do you want to add that _cool_ feature users will love? - Yes ... Yes You may end up with a software art piece.
• b00ty4breakfast 7mo ago
  it's only going to get worse once they go public, though maybe not in that specific way.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• marsven_422 7mo ago
  [dead]