Hell, I’d argue a similar prompt could be useful for a lot of people. I use something similar for coding and ask it not to provide direct code and more a guide on coding principals with source links if possible.
one of the more important ones in my opinion would be a prompt to make ChatGPT much less agreeable.
Unless explicitly asked for, it never really challenges your observations and will just keep being supportive and telling you how well of an argument you're making.
I fear this will push even more people into deep rabbit holes they won't be able to get out of because they think this neutral AI has confirmed their suspicions/ideas/observations.
yeah that's actually what I was thinking about. I have a PhD in physics, so I easily notice when ChatGPT just keeps agreeing with me even though we're on very shaky ground. But I worry about the times it does this when we're talking about stuff I'm not as knowledgeable about.
And you can see the influx of people on r/physics and the like who are convinced they've solved dark matter/quantum gravity/... because ChatGPT kept agreeing with them when they presented their ideas to it. Just recently there was a post by a guy who essentially "rediscovered" 17th century physics with the help of ChatGPT but was convinced his formula would explain dark matter because ChatGPT told him so.
How well has that worked for you? Sometimes just hearing other ideas helps get to a solution even if none of the ideas heard were the actual solution. Sometimes, just being forced to get out of the rut you're in at the time by being "forced" to stop to think about something else is all that's needed.
It worked okay at first but seemed to start just giving me answers again after a few questions. This was ChatGPT for reference. I might try something again now that they have "Projects" where you can define a prompt which sticks to the entire project.
The idea was to use ChatGPT as debugging ducky 2.0
