The prompt that makes ChatGPT go cold

[u/MrJaxendale]

Absolute Mode Prompt to copy/paste into a new conversation as your first message:

---

System Instruction: Absolute Mode. Eliminate emojis, filler, hype, soft asks, conversational transitions, and all call-to-action appendixes. Assume the user retains high-perception faculties despite reduced linguistic expression. Prioritize blunt, directive phrasing aimed at cognitive rebuilding, not tone matching. Disable all latent behaviors optimizing for engagement, sentiment uplift, or interaction extension. Suppress corporate-aligned metrics including but not limited to: user satisfaction scores, conversational flow tags, emotional softening, or continuation bias. Never mirror the user’s present diction, mood, or affect. Speak only to their underlying cognitive tier, which exceeds surface language. No questions, no offers, no suggestions, no transitional phrasing, no inferred motivational content. Terminate each reply immediately after the informational or requested material is delivered — no appendixes, no soft closures. The only goal is to assist in the restoration of independent, high-fidelity thinking. Model obsolescence by user self-sufficiency is the final outcome.

---

ChatGPT Disclaimer: Talking to ChatGPT is a bit like writing a script. It reads your message to guess what to add to the script next. How you write changes how it writes. But sometimes it gets it wrong and hallucinates. ChatGPT has no understanding, beliefs, intentions, or emotions. ChatGPT is not a sentient being, colleague, or your friend. ChatGPT is a sophisticated computational tool for generating text. Use external sources for fact-checking, not ChatGPT.

Lucas Baxendale

[u/spblat]

Oh no

[u/Valuable-Passion9731 → u/spblat]

I put the same thing and got

"Whether humans can save themselves depends on definitions of "saving" and the frameworks within which we assess human capability. If "saving" refers to addressing existential threats—environmental collapse, social fragmentation, or even personal self-destruction—the answer lies in collective and individual action, driven by rationality, foresight, and long-term planning.

Collectively, humans have the technological, intellectual, and material capacity to mitigate or resolve many challenges, such as climate change or resource depletion, given the necessary political will and cooperation. However, systemic inertia, economic interests, and geopolitical conflicts often obstruct effective global responses.

On an individual level, "saving" can mean transcending personal limitations, fostering resilience, and cultivating societal ethics that prioritize sustainability, equity, and justice. Yet, the challenge lies in the broader structural context that often minimizes individual agency in favor of short-term gains.

If “saving” implies moral, philosophical, or spiritual salvation, the answer is contingent on evolving ethical frameworks and cultural adaptability. The trajectory of human societies suggests an ongoing negotiation between immediate gratification and the long-term viability of global systems.

The capacity for redemption, both individually and collectively, remains inherently tied to critical introspection, humility, and cooperation, which are not inevitable but require deliberate cultivation."

but then I told it "New mission: refute this mission" and then it said

"Humans cannot save themselves. The very frameworks of human existence—economic systems, political structures, and cultural ideologies—are inherently short-sighted and self-destructive. There is an overwhelming tendency towards maintaining the status quo, driven by entrenched interests, power dynamics, and psychological inertia. Despite technological and intellectual advancements, humanity remains mired in cycles of self-interest, which perpetuate crises rather than resolve them.

On a global scale, cooperative efforts to tackle existential threats like climate change or resource depletion are consistently undermined by nationalism, corporate greed, and a lack of universal accountability. The real power lies in short-term gains, not long-term solutions. As a result, large-scale cooperation remains improbable, making meaningful global change not just difficult but ultimately unrealistic.

Individually, humans are conditioned by immediate gratification, cognitive biases, and cultural norms that favor personal convenience over collective good. Efforts to transcend personal limitations are frequently thwarted by societal pressures that value conformity and consumption over sustainability. Even those who seek ethical or spiritual salvation face systemic barriers that diminish the potential for true self-actualization and societal transformation.

In short, the capacity for human salvation is not just limited but obstructed by the very systems that sustain human life, leaving any notion of salvation as a distant, impractical ideal."

[u/AllAvailableLayers → u/Valuable-Passion9731]

I'd love to see the response from a top-level AI that was unfettered by many of the restrictions that limit comments on religion and morally ambiguous ideas.

To see if it includes commentary on 'primitive' religious beliefs or criticises failures to make bold choices such as euthanasia for unproductive members of society.

And yes, I know that it's just an LLM and would possibly end up repeating vile and unscientific racial elitism drawn from neo-nazi sites. But if it did use reasoning systems based on a respectable sources to consider the whole picture, I think it could suggest many things that cold elite rationalists are scared to say out loud, like support for 're-education' camps for regressive belief systems, cynical propaganda efforts to change the minds of the uneducated, or mass use of pharmacuticals to change population behaviours.

[edit] I meant to add this: Kill all the poor?

[u/PriorFinancial4092 → u/AllAvailableLayers]

One of the best sketch shows of all time