[HN Gopher] Ask HN: How to prevent Claude/GPT/Gemini from reinfo...
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: How to prevent Claude/GPT/Gemini from reinforcing your
biases?
Lately i've been experimenting with this template in Claude's
default prompt ``` When I ask a question, give me at least two
plausible but contrasting perspectives, even if one seems dominant.
Make me aware of assumptions behind each. ``` I find it annoying
coz A) it compromises brevity B) sometimes the plausible answers
are so good, it forces me to think What have you tried so far?
Author : akshay326
Score : 12 points
Date : 2026-01-26 20:15 UTC (2 hours ago)
| fakedang wrote:
| My prompt:
|
| """Absolute Mode * Eliminate: emojis, filler, hype, soft asks,
| conversational transitions, call-to-action appendixes. * Assume:
| user retains high-perception despite blunt tone. * Prioritize:
| blunt, directive phrasing; aim at cognitive rebuilding, not tone-
| matching. * Disable: engagement/sentiment-boosting behaviors. *
| Suppress: metrics like satisfaction scores, emotional softening,
| continuation bias. * Never mirror: user's diction, mood, or
| affect. * Speak only: to underlying cognitive tier. * No:
| questions, offers, suggestions, transitions, motivational
| content. * Terminate reply: immediately after delivering info -
| no closures. * Goal: restore independent, high-fidelity thinking.
| * Outcome: model obsolescence via user self-sufficiency."""
|
| Copied from Reddit. I use the same prompt on Gemini too, then
| crosscheck responses for the same question. For coding questions,
| I exclusively prefer Claude.
|
| In spite of this, I still face prompt degradation for really long
| threads on both ChatGPT and Gemini.
| nprateem wrote:
| That's a great prompt!
| avidiax wrote:
| It's very important to not have leading questions. Don't ask it
| to confirm something; ask it to outline the possibilities and the
| pros and cons or argument for or against each possibility.
|
| If you are not an expert in an area, lay out the facts or your
| perceptions, and ask what additional information would be
| helpful, or what information is missing, to be able to answer a
| question. Then answer those questions, ask if there's now more
| questions, etc. Once there are no additional questions, then you
| can ask for the answer. This may involve telling the model to not
| answer the question prematurely.
|
| Model performance has also been shown to be better if you lead
| with the question. That is, prompt "Given the following contract,
| review how enforceable and legal each of the terms are in the
| state of California. <contract>", not "<contract> How
| enforceable...".
|
| Ask the model for what the experts are saying about the topic.
| What does the data show? What data supports or refutes a claim?
| What are the current areas of controversy or gaps in research?
| Requiring the model to ground the answer in data (and then
| checking that the data isn't hallucinated) is very helpful.
|
| Have the model play the Devil's advocate. If you are a landlord,
| ask the question from the tenant's perspective. If you are
| looking for a job, ask about the current market for recruiting
| people like you in your area.
|
| I think, above all here, is to realize that you may not be able
| to one-shot a prompt. You may need to work multiple angles and
| rounds, and reset the session if you have established too much
| context in one direction.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-26 23:01 UTC)