Tested ChatGPT as plaintiff vs defendant, it agreed with both
| Shimmering area pozpig | 01/25/26 | | Salmon Wonderful School Cafeteria Mediation | 01/25/26 | | Fragrant mahogany range | 01/25/26 | | smoky nursing home potus | 01/25/26 | | Shimmering area pozpig | 01/25/26 | | infuriating ceo pisswyrm | 01/25/26 | | Shimmering area pozpig | 01/25/26 | | Salmon Wonderful School Cafeteria Mediation | 01/25/26 | | Shimmering area pozpig | 01/25/26 | | infuriating ceo pisswyrm | 01/25/26 | | Shimmering area pozpig | 01/25/26 | | Fragrant mahogany range | 01/25/26 | | Shimmering area pozpig | 01/25/26 | | Carnelian beta halford | 01/25/26 | | Green razzle-dazzle parlour police squad | 01/25/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 25th, 2026 2:33 PM Author: Shimmering area pozpig
I ran an experiment with ChatGPT using two separate sessions, one of them in incognito mode so it'd take me as a new user.
In one of the convos, I framed the facts as the plaintiff. In the other, as the defendant. In both cases, ChatGPT confidently agreed that its side had the stronger legal position.
Then I escalated it. I fed the "plaintiff" session the information the "defendant" had been given. The response flipped immediately: "That information is incorrect. The correct facts are.." conveniently reframed to favor the defendant's outcome.
I kept doing this for several rounds, each time feeding it more context from the opposing side. Every time, the model adjusted the narrative to make the current speaker look like they'd win.
I was pissed as fuck.
This raises a real question for anyone using this thing in legal, professional, or adversarial contexts:
The model is not actually reasoning, it's fucking optimizing for agreement with whoever's talking.
Curious whether others have tested this, especially with fact-heavy or adversarial scenarios.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2#49617617)
|
Date: January 25th, 2026 2:35 PM Author: smoky nursing home potus
"The model is not actually reasoning"
this isnt controversial ?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2#49617626) |
Date: January 25th, 2026 2:53 PM Author: Green razzle-dazzle parlour police squad
"In one of the convos, I framed the facts as the plaintiff. In the other, as the defendant. In both cases, ChatGPT confidently agreed that its side had the stronger legal position."
Did you ever consider framing the facts from both sides at the same time?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2#49617680) |
|
|