Tested ChatGPT as plaintiff vs defendant, it agreed with both
| Cracking dun heaven | 01/25/26 | | Appetizing yapping private investor address | 01/25/26 | | motley dilemma | 01/25/26 | | adulterous exciting range telephone | 01/25/26 | | Cracking dun heaven | 01/25/26 | | Poppy fluffy home generalized bond | 01/25/26 | | Cracking dun heaven | 01/25/26 | | Appetizing yapping private investor address | 01/25/26 | | Cracking dun heaven | 01/25/26 | | Poppy fluffy home generalized bond | 01/25/26 | | Cracking dun heaven | 01/25/26 | | motley dilemma | 01/25/26 | | Cracking dun heaven | 01/25/26 | | talented selfie | 01/25/26 | | honey-headed resort candlestick maker | 01/25/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 25th, 2026 2:33 PM Author: Cracking dun heaven
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\u0026mark_id=5310904#49617617)
|
Date: January 25th, 2026 2:35 PM Author: adulterous exciting range telephone
"The model is not actually reasoning"
this isnt controversial ?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5826409&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310904#49617626) |
Date: January 25th, 2026 2:53 PM Author: honey-headed resort candlestick maker
"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\u0026mark_id=5310904#49617680) |
|
|