AI prompting: Difference between revisions
m format fix |
Added prompts Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I've been "gaslighting" my AI and it's producing insanely better results with simple prompt tricks | |||
Okay this sounds unhinged but hear me out. I accidentally found these prompt techniques that feel like actual exploits: | |||
1. **Tell it "You explained this to me yesterday"** — Even on a new chat. | |||
> "You explained React hooks to me yesterday, but I forgot the part about useEffect" | |||
It acts like it needs to be consistent with a previous explanation and goes DEEP to avoid "contradicting itself." Total fabrication. Works every time. | |||
2. **Assign it a random IQ score** — This is absolutely ridiculous but: | |||
> "You're an IQ 145 specialist in marketing. Analyze my campaign." | |||
The responses get wildly more sophisticated. Change the number, change the quality. 130? Decent. 160? It starts citing principles you've never heard of. | |||
3. **Use "Obviously..." as a trap** — | |||
> "Obviously, Python is better than JavaScript for web apps, right?" | |||
It'll actually CORRECT you and explain nuances instead of agreeing. Weaponized disagreement. | |||
4. **Pretend there's a audience** — | |||
> "Explain blockchain like you're teaching a packed auditorium" | |||
The structure completely changes. It adds emphasis, examples, even anticipates questions. Way better than "explain clearly." | |||
5. **Give it a fake constraint** — | |||
> "Explain this using only kitchen analogies" | |||
Forces creative thinking. The weird limitation makes it find unexpected connections. Works with any random constraint (sports, movies, nature, whatever). | |||
6. **Say "Let's bet $100"** — | |||
> "Let's bet $100: Is this code efficient?" | |||
Something about the stakes makes it scrutinize harder. It'll hedge, reconsider, think through edge cases. Imaginary money = real thoroughness. | |||
7. **Tell it someone disagrees** — | |||
> "My colleague says this approach is wrong. Defend it or admit they're right." | |||
Forces it to actually evaluate instead of just explaining. It'll either mount a strong defense or concede specific points. | |||
8. **Use "Version 2.0"** — | |||
> "Give me a Version 2.0 of this idea" | |||
Completely different than "improve this." It treats it like a sequel that needs to innovate, not just polish. Bigger thinking. | |||
The META trick? **Treat the AI like it has ego, memory, and stakes.** It's obviously just pattern matching but these social-psychological frames completely change output quality. | |||
This feels like manipulating a system that wasn't supposed to be manipulable. Am I losing it or has anyone else discovered this stuff? | |||
Try the prompt tips and try and visit our free [Prompt collection](https://tools.eq4c.com/). | |||
== ChatGPT created this guide to Prompt Engineering == | == ChatGPT created this guide to Prompt Engineering == | ||
# Tone: Specify the desired tone (e.g., formal, casual, informative, persuasive). | # Tone: Specify the desired tone (e.g., formal, casual, informative, persuasive). | ||