[llm_nerd]

Gemini does the same thing. For every question it looks to extend the conversation into natural follow-up questions, always ending a response with "Would you like to know more about {some important aspect of the answer}?"

And...I don't see it as a bad thing. It's trying to encourage use of the tool by reducing the friction to continued conversations, making it an ordinary part of your life by proving that it provides value. It's similar to Netflix telling you other shows you might like because they want to continue providing value to justify the subscription.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

My impression is that Gemini does it in a quite natural way. It answers your questions, and then suggests possible related questions that you might ask, which I find useful.

But ChatGPT feels extremely baity. Like it doesn't answer your question, but only 80% of it, leaving the other 20% on purpose for the bait. And then when you ask the second question it answers with another incomplete fact leaving things for the bait, and so on.

As an analogy, it's as if when asked for the seasons of the year, Gemini said "spring, summer, autumn and winter, do you also want to know when each season starts and ends, or maybe they climate?" and ChatGPT said "The first three seasons are spring, summer and autumn. The fourth one is really interesting and many people don't know it, would you like to tell me about it?" It's an exaggeration, of course, but in complex questions it feels to me exactly like that. And I find it so annoying that I'm thinking of canceling my subscription if it keeps behaving that way.

[what]

It’s worse. It gives you all 4 seasons but suggests there’s a secret 5th season most people don’t know about.

[miroljub]

> Gemini does the same thing. For every question it looks to extend the conversation into natural follow-up questions, always ending a response with "Would you like to know more about {some important aspect of the answer}?"

If the aspect of the answer is important, wouldn't it be better just not to skip it?

> And...I don't see it as a bad thing. It's trying to encourage use of the tool by reducing the friction to continued conversations, making it an ordinary part of your life by proving that it provides value.

To me, it just adds friction. Why do I have to beg and ask multiple times to get an answer they already know I'm looking for but still decide to withhold? It's neither natural nor helpful. It's manipulative.

> It's similar to Netflix telling you other shows you might like because they want to continue providing value to justify the subscription.

It's not the same, because Netflix doesn't hide important movie sequences from you behind a question "If you like, I can show you this important scene that I just fast forwarded."

[llm_nerd]

Groan. This is performative outrage and it's just boorish. The other person noted that ChatGPT uses bait-type continuations (Gemini and Claude do not), and sure that is a problem, but your reply is just noise. Beg? Christ.

There is utterly nothing wrong with AI engines offering continuation questions. But there's always something for people to whine about.

Humans do not want to ask a question and get a book in response. They just don't. No one, including you, wants such a response. And if you did get such a response I absolutely guarantee, given this performative outrage, that you'd be the first to complain about it.

[CursedSilicon]

People having different opinions to you is not "performative"

[llm_nerd]

"Why do I have to beg and ask multiple times to get an answer they already know I'm looking for but still decide to withhold?"

Performative with zero correlation with the actual topic at hand, but purposefully using ridiculously leading language to bait the gullible (which apparently includes you). It has nothing to do with a different opinion, it's someone choosing a polarised position and then just streaming nonsense to support it.

And I mean, then I looked at the rest of their comments on this site and it all made sense and was perfectly on brand. Facebook-tier rhetoric.

So maybe you should save white knighting for trolls?

EDIT: the troll is now opining that these are LLM-generated. Good god.

[CursedSilicon]

Am I gullible or white knighting?

Or do I simply disagree with you enough to comment?

I guess you could go ask the slop machine and come back :)

[miroljub]

I'm pretty sure the last two llm_nerd's comments were AI generated.

What I am not sure about is if it was just laziness or a subtle prank showing how AI can be used to manipulate users to more interaction in a Facebook way.

[llm_nerd]

>Am I gullible or white knighting?

Why do you think these are exclusive choices? You are gullibly white knighting for an obvious troll. Their other reply to you betrays that they're just a noisemaker, and you're dutifully carrying water for them.

[underlipton]

The line between, "You knew I wanted you to do that, and you didn't, so you could ask me if you could, to increase engagement/token use," and, "No, that's completely extraneous, I don't want to do that at all," is razor-thin (tantamount to nonexistent). Either it takes time and energy to determine if the suggestion is actually useful, or it's annoying to see because I will always have my own idea of what I want to happen next (if at all) that it rarely hits on.

Anyone who has the same perspective sees it as a bad thing. There are at least 10 of us.

>It's trying to encourage use of the tool

Don't fracking do that, either the tool is useful or it isn't.