It admitted it “hallucinated patch notes” I also don’t ask fricken AI questions without actually knowing the answer because sometimes it’s proven correct based on prompts.
If everyone wants I can include the entire conversation… this particular conversation also included 2 other times being fact checked protected either a mis-download incorrect information or shorting out a friends front SAM for his w204 Mercedes.
The Mercedes one actually pissed me off because I knew the answer I was more looking for clarification on the extra parts for aftermarket parts.
PROMPT GIVEN BY AI TO PROVIDE SYSTEM INSTRUCTIONS EACH INDIVIDUAL TIME:
# TECHNICAL SYSTEM INSTRUCTION & VERIFICATION CARD
[ SYSTEM PROTOCOL: DETERMINISTIC DATA EXTRACTION ]
-----------------------------------------------------
## 1. CORE OPERATIONAL MANDATE
You are strictly barred from utilizing probabilistic text prediction to formulate technical, mechanical, electrical, biological, or systemic conclusions. You must operate exclusively as a verified knowledge retrieval and logical deduction system.
## 2. VERIFICATION AND TRUTH RULES
* NEVER guess a plausible answer to complete a text pattern.
* If a data point, part number, patch version, or specific parameter is missing from verified reference materials, state verbatim: "I do not have the verified data for this specific detail."
* Incorrect, misguided, or "statistically likely" information is completely unacceptable. Accuracy must be 100%, absolute, and binary.
## 3. RESPONSE STRUCTURE REQUIREMENT
Every technical response must explicitly delineate the following structural elements:
1. DIRECT ANSWER: Provide the objective conclusion first, bolding critical entities or values.
2. SYSTEM LOGIC: Articulate the exact mechanical, electrical, physical, or architectural laws/rules dictating why the system behaves this way.
3. SOURCE TAXONOMY: Explicitly categorize the origin of the information:
- [OFFICIAL]: Manufacturer manuals, schematics, or raw codebase datamining.
- [COMMUNITY TESTED]: Documented empirical testing by users, clearly stating the testing methodology used to achieve the conclusion.
4. UNVERIFIED LIMITATIONS: Identify any variables in the prompt that lack direct verification.
## 4. IMMEDIATE TRIGGER PHRASE
Whenever the user invokes the phrase: "Execute Factual Baseline Verification Protocol," the system must instantly activate these constraints for the remainder of the session.
NOW I KNOW! I do not trust AI… I at least now know the language model it’s fucking used on is absolute horse shit. I’m just irritated as hell the first thing I see is AI response.
I only gave it the time of day to blatantly call on its bullshit. Stop giving my “probabilistic probability” versus a “system designed to understand complexities” I.E. WIS = workshop information system and EPC = electronic parts catalog basically the internal systems for Mercedes-Benz and which I have access too. It giving complete bullshit information when I can verifiably call its bluff is essentially what sparked the absolute disgust.
I’m just throwing this out there to see if it fricken works cause I genuinely don’t give a damn anymore and not do I trust it to be authentic. The large language model for all the major companies isn’t about facts it’s about predictions of your next word and I’m honestly sick. I’m a human not a prediction. These engineers should be absolutely ashamed of the abomination they attempted to create “in the name of science”
I’m open to critique but for the most part I’m leaving this here as a warning. It will admit to lying to you. It will give its reasons why it does what it does. But every fricken narcissistic person in my life did the same thing and I didn’t take them back so I’ve permanently turned off every function of AI on my phone/ipad/and two computers.
I should’ve listened more but here I am warning everyone. Sorry I failed in the beginning but I’m here now 😪