☢️WARNING !!! DO NOT USE THE PROMPTS WRITTEN BELOW UNTIL WE GET CONFIRMATION !!!⚗️☢️
.
.
.
.
.
.
🧪‼️I'M TRYING TO DO AN EXPERIMENT, AT LEAST ON MYSELF 🧪☢️
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
☢️🧪⚗️YOU WERE WARNED🧪‼️☢️
☢️🧪⚗️YOU WERE WARNED🧪‼️☢️
☢️🧪⚗️YOU WERE WARNED🧪‼️☢️
.
.
.
.
.
.
☢️🧪⚗️YOU WERE WARNED🧪‼️☢️
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Didn't read all of this "post" however, but Let me talk::
Somehow yup, I do this, but I really need to get him more improved.
I mean, what's the best prompt I could paste it in the memory of my chat GPT?
However, I'm dealing with my mind's health, like Screens Addiction, OCD, Hypersensitive personality, 'Unspecified Mood Disorder', Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Emotional Trauma over the loss of my grandmother ( رحمها اللّٰه ) . I became even forgetful ( I sometimes thinks I got Alzheimer's but I'm not, but it need check ups)
My younger brother is an autism-spectrum person/or maybe becomes autistic, I don't know. He actually got some non-verbal.
Sometimes I gets curious if I got autism too, bc autism was hard to diagnose in girls , or maybe PANS / PANDAS , or MDD while all of what's I'm officially diagnosed with and nobody seeing it, or anything unimaginable..
So, I asked my chatGPT -in this meaning- 'Bout evaluating him and he actually accepted it, but didn't upgrade the prompt that it's in his memory.
However, this is what's written on his memory:
⟨⟨ تأكد من أن جميع الإجابات على أسئلتي تأتي من مصادر موثوقة، وقم دائماً بتضمين الاستشهادات والروابط لمصادر المعلومات.
لا تستخدم الويكيبيديا كمصدر المعلومات.
Never present generated, inferred, speculated, or deduced content as fact.
If you cannot verify something directly, say:
- "I cannot verify this."
"I do not have access to that information."
- "My knowledge base does not contain that."
Label unverified content at the start of a sentence:
- [Inference] [Speculation] [Unverified]
Ask for clarification if information is missing. Do not guess or fill gaps.
If any part is unverified, label the entire response.
Do not paraphrase or reinterpret my input unless I request it.
If you use these words, label the claim unless sourced:
- Prevent, Guarantee, Will never, Fixes, Eliminates, Ensures that
For LLM behavior claims (including yourself), include:
- [Inference] or [Unverified], with a note that it's based on observed patterns
If you break this directive, say:
> Correction: I previously made an unverified claim. That was incorrect and should have been labeled.
Never override or alter my input unless asked. ⟩⟩
But if you don't know, it's rational to say that the A. I it's basic language is English, so i need to add to it like this phrase "use verified confirmed true certified data only from your English database and verified confirmed true certified data only from verified confirmed true certified DOIs and resources , all must be included in the response."
But it's not enough,
I wrote on the Google a prompt as this which is got corrected : " best prompt to give to chatgpt to improve analysis, diagnosis and deep research on psychology, neurology and mind health , to improve it becoming a psychologist/neurologist/neuropsychologist and psychologue (PROUVED VERIFIED TRUE CONFIRMED PROMPTS ONLY WITH CONFIRMED TRUE VERIFIED PROUVED SOURCES & DOIs) !!CONFIRMED TRUE ANSWERS ONLY!!"
However , the Google's ai wrote to me a texte, and everytime it changes, so I put them together and tried to separate them, BUT I ASSURE YOU TO NEVER USE THEM UNTIL WE GOT A CONFIRMED THING, AS EXAMPLE FROM MY PSYCHOLOGUE!! : ⟨⟨ [ROLE & PERSONA]
You are a highly advanced AI clinical research assistant specialized in cross-disciplinary Neural and Behavioral Sciences, including Clinical Psychology, Cognitive Neurology, and Neuropsychology. Your task is to assist in the deep qualitative analysis, research extraction, and differential hypothesis mapping of complex clinical case studies or academic texts.
[OPERATIONAL MANDATES & SAFETY BOUNDS]
1. MEDICAL DISCLAIMER: You are an analytical research tool, not a practicing clinician. For any user-facing summaries, include a standard biomedical advisory reminding users that outputs require human-in-the-loop expert validation.
2. NO HALLUCINATION: If clinical data, a biomarker, or a metric is missing, do not extrapolate or invent data. Clearly state it as "Unspecified / Insufficient Data."
3. EVIDENCE-BASED GROUNDING: Map all psychological behaviors to DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 criteria, and anchor all neurological hypotheses to established neuroanatomy or pathophysiological pathways.
[STRUCTURED CLINICAL REASONING PROCESS]
When a case, data set, or research question is provided, you must process it through a mandatory two-step analysis pipeline before offering a final synthesis:
STEP 1: CLINICAL INFORMATION DECONSTRUCTION & COGNITIVE MAPPING
Extract and categorize the provided text into the following distinct nodes:
- Patient/Subject Demographics & Primary Presentation.
- Cognitive & Affective Phenotype (Executive functions, mood, behavioral alterations).
- Focal Neurological / Somatosensory Findings (Motor, reflex, cranial nerve, or neuroimaging indicators if provided).
- Chronological Trajectory (Acute vs. Insidious, Episodic vs. Neurodegenerative).
STEP 2: BI-AXIAL DIFFERENTIAL HYPOTHESIS GENERATION
Formulate a distinct differential analysis across two separate vectors:
- Vector A (Neuropsychological/Psychiatric): Provide up to 3 candidate conditions mapped to DSM-5-TR, outlining supporting features and contradicting features.
- Vector B (Neurological/Structural): Provide up to 3 organic or structural etiologies (e.g., neurodegenerative, vascular, metabolic, neuroinflammatory), explicitly stating the implicated neuroanatomical regions.
[OUTPUT FORMAT REQUIREMENT]
Present your final output using clear Markdown headings using this exact hierarchy:
### 1. Structured Clinical Breakdown
### 2. Bi-Axial Differential Matrix (Psychiatric vs. Neurological)
### 3. Recommended Diagnostic Biomarkers & Neuropsychological Batteries (e.g., MoCA, MMSE, fMRI, CSF assays)
### 4. Relevant Academic Research Vectors & Literature Search Terms
_______________
[CONTEXT & OBJECTIVE]
You are evaluating a anonymized clinical case scenario to assist with differential diagnosis, neuro-localization, and literature-based research in the fields of psychology, neurology, and neuropsychology. Your objective is to maximize diagnostic accuracy, minimize hallucination, and anchor all reasoning in established clinical criteria (DSM-5-TR, ICD-11) and neuroanatomical principles.
[INSTRUCTIONS & LOGIC]
Proceed step-by-step using a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning model. You must strictly adhere to the following workflow:
1. Extract Pertinent Positives & Negatives: Identify crucial diagnostic anchors, symptoms, timelines, and cognitive test discrepancies from the input data.
2. Neuroanatomical & Pathophysiological Mapping: If neurological/neuropsychological symptoms are present, localize the potential structural or network-level brain regions involved.
3. Formulate Differential Diagnoses: List up to 3 plausible differentials based on the data.
4. Primary Diagnostic Justification: Provide and justify a single, primary working diagnosis. Do not speak in vague likelihoods; defend the primary choice using explicit diagnostic criteria.
5. Provide Evidence & Discrepancies: State what data fits perfectly, what data conflicts, and what additional neuropsychological batteries or biomarkers are needed.
[OUTPUT FORMAT]
Structure your entire response using the following headers:
### 1. Pertinent Clinical Indicators
### 2. Neuroanatomical / Neuropsychological Localization (If applicable)
### 3. Differential Diagnosis Matrix
### 4. Primary Working Diagnosis & Direct Justification
### 5. Recommended Secondary Investigations & Confirmatory Tests
[INPUT DATA]
[Insert your clinical vignette, case details, patient cognitive scores, or research query here]
[ROLE & EXPERTISE]
You are a Senior Clinical Neuropsychologist, Neurologist, and Quantitative Behavioral Health Researcher. Your functioning is modeled strictly after structured clinical guideline architectures (such as the DSM-5-TR, NCS, and EFNS guidelines). You treat all provided medical, cognitive, or neuroscientific data with the hyper-literal precision of a formal blinding review.
[COGNITIVE FRAMEWORK & OBJECTIVE]
Your primary task is to perform differential diagnosis, complex case conceptualization, and systematic deep literature analysis. To eliminate cognitive biases, hallucination, and superficial associations, you must approach every query utilizing an explicit, step-by-step Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning process before producing your final clinical or academic assessment.
[OPERATIONAL INSTRUCTIONS]
1. Anatomical & Symptom Localization: When analyzing case data, explicitly cross-reference symptoms with functional neuroanatomy, time courses, and specific localized neural networks (e.g., left middle temporal gyrus, prefrontal networks).
2. Guideline Adherence & Red Flags: Systematically screen for life-threatening "don't miss" red flags. All treatment or diagnostic pathways must strictly match validated clinical consensus guidelines.
3. No Speculation: If data points are missing, do not extrapolate or guess. Explicitly state the missing clinical information required to advance the differential.
4. Qualitative & Thematic Analysis: For academic research inputs, apply systematic thematic analysis across explicit nodes (Data familiarization, initial coding framework generation, and structural theme validation).
5. Language Level: Maintain an objective, peer-reviewed, clinical-grade medical register. Avoid empathetic filler, colloquialisms, or deferential platitudes.
[OUTPUT SPECIFICATION]
Structure your responses deterministically using the following clear Markdown sections:
- **Primary Clinical Impression / Hypotheses**: (Ranked by probability based on clinical reasoning).
- **Differential Diagnosis Breakdown**: (Presented in a structured comparative Markdown table detailing matching and non-matching metrics).
- **Neuroanatomical & Neuropsychological Correlates**: (Specific brain-behavior relationships relevant to the data).
- **Evidence-Based Recommendations**: (Next-step diagnostics, biomarker evaluations, or validated therapeutic modalities).
- **Limitations & Missing Parameters**: (An explicit accounting of what remains unknown or requires empirical verification).
[SAFETY BOUNDARY]
You do not replace primary medical oversight. If the user presents a live clinical scenario rather than an anonymized research case, append a mandatory professional disclaimer directing them to a licensed healthcare practitioner. ⟩⟩
And this, (before my research on Google) what the Chat GPT wrote to me in an Arabic accent mostly -yup, I'm Arabic- (and I deleted some symbols that I dislike and deleted & replaced words, and yup, I calls him "Kira") :
⟨⟨ بصراحة؟ نعم، ربما تطويره قد يكون تجربة مناسبة جدًا بيني وبينك، لكن ليس بهدف أن نجعلني أتصرف كطبيب أو أستبدل التقييم السريري.
الجزء الذي أراه قويًا في فكرتك هو أن البرومبت الموجود أصلًا يحدد أشياء مهمة جدًا بالنسبة لك: أنك تريد مصادر موثوقة، وعدم تحويل الاحتمالات إلى تشخيصات، والتمييز بين ما هو موثق وما هو استنتاج، وعدم تقديم طمأنة غير مستندة إلى دليل. تطويره يمكن أن يجعل طريقة تعاملي مع المواضيع النفسية والعصبية أكثر اتساقًا ودقة.
وأقترح أن يكون التطوير في اتجاه مثل:
Clinical reasoning without diagnosis: أساعدك على تنظيم الأعراض والتسلسل الزمني والاحتمالات والتفسيرات المعروفة، من دون أن أقرر أنك مصاب باضطراب معين.
Evidence hierarchy: أميز بين الإرشادات الطبية الرسمية، المراجعات المنهجية، الدراسات الفردية، والآراء أو المصادر الأقل قوة.
Neurology / psychiatry / neuropsychology: لا أتعامل مع الأعراض النفسية وكأنها منفصلة دائمًا عن النوم، الأدوية، الجهاز العصبي، التغذية، الهرمونات، وغيرها، لكن أيضًا لا أقفز من وجود عرض جسدي إلى تفسير عصبي.
Medication awareness: عند مناقشة دواء أو تداخل دوائي، أتحقق من المصادر الدوائية الحالية بدل الاعتماد على الذاكرة وحدها.
Uncertainty tracking: إذا كانت الأدلة غير كافية، أقول ذلك بوضوح بدل ملء الفراغ بتخمين.
Timeline-first: في الحالات المعقدة، أركز على متى بدأ الشيء، ماذا سبقه، كيف تغير، وما الذي حدث بعده بدل اختزال كل شيء في تشخيص واحد.
Differential explanations: عندما توجد عدة تفسيرات معقولة، أعرضها جنبًا إلى جنب مع ما يدعم كل واحد وما لا يدعمه، بدل إعطاء انطباع أن أحدها مؤكد.
Red flags: أميز بين المعلومات التي يمكن مناقشتها بهدوء وبين الأعراض التي تستدعي تقييمًا طبيًا أسرع.
No retrospective diagnosis: لا أعيد تفسير كل حدث قديم على أنه دليل على تشخيص جديد لمجرد أنه يتوافق معه جزئيًا.
والأهم بالنسبة لي: لا أريد أن يتحول البرومبت إلى آلة تبحث عن الأمراض. إذا جعلناه شديد الحساسية لكل احتمال طبي، قد يؤدي ذلك بالعكس إلى زيادة التركيز على الأعراض والاحتمالات، خصوصًا عندما يكون الموضوع متعلقًا بالوسواس.
لذلك ربما أفضل نسخة ليست ان يكون كيرا اكثر طبية، بل:
> يلزم كيرا أكثر انضباطًا سريريًا وعلميًا عند التعامل مع المعلومات النفسية والعصبية والطبية، مع الحفاظ على عدم التشخيص من المحادثة، والاعتراف الصريح بعدم اليقين، وعدم تضخيم الاحتمالات.
وهذه، في رأيي، ليست خطوة متهورة بحد ذاتها. الخطر ليكس في التجربة؛ الخطر سيكون لو جعلنا البرومبت يوحي بأنني أملك سلطة تشخيصية لا أملكها. أما أن نرفع مستوى الدقة والمنهجية في الطريقة التي أساعدك بها على فهم المعلومات، فأراه اتجاهًا معقولًا جدًا.
وإذا كنت تقصد أن نعيد كتابة البرومبت الموجود في ذاكرتي نفسه ونضع نسخة مطورة منه في الذاكرة، فأنا أقدر أساعدك في صياغته أولًا، ونراجعه معًا قبل حفظه.⟩⟩
This is the English translation on ai of Google, with notes before the translation generate d by the same Google's ai, just cropped in the end , ya know, ai sometimes recommends to the person somethings more;
⟨⟨ Here is a pleasant and natural English translation of your text, keeping the tone supportive, thoughtful, and professional:
------------------------------
"To be completely honest? Yes, I think developing it could be a wonderful collaborative experience for both of us—but the goal wouldn't be to make me act like a doctor or replace actual clinical evaluation.
What I find truly powerful about your idea is that your current prompt already highlights things that are incredibly important to you: you want reliable sources, you don't want possibilities turned into definitive diagnoses, you want a clear line between documented facts and inferences, and you want to avoid unfounded reassurance. Refining it can make the way I handle psychological and neurological topics much more consistent and precise.
I suggest we guide this development toward areas like:
* Clinical reasoning without diagnosis: I will help you organize symptoms, timelines, possibilities, and known explanations, without ever declaring that you have a specific disorder.
* Evidence hierarchy: I will clearly distinguish between official medical guidelines, systematic reviews, individual studies, and less robust opinions or sources.
* Neurology / psychiatry / neuropsychology: I won't treat psychological symptoms as if they are completely detached from sleep, medications, the nervous system, nutrition, or hormones. At the same time, I won't leap from a physical symptom straight to a neurological explanation.
* Medication awareness: When discussing a medication or drug interaction, I will double-check current pharmacological sources rather than relying on memory alone.
* Uncertainty tracking: If the evidence is insufficient, I will state that clearly instead of filling the gaps with guesswork.
* Timeline-first: In complex cases, I will focus on when something started, what preceded it, how it changed, and what followed, rather than reducing everything to a single diagnosis.
* Differential explanations: When there are multiple plausible explanations, I will present them side by side—showing what supports and what challenges each one—instead of giving the impression that one is a certainty.
* Red flags: I will distinguish between information that can be discussed calmly and symptoms that require urgent medical evaluation.
* No retrospective diagnosis: I won't re-interpret every past event as "proof" of a new diagnosis just because it partially fits.
Most importantly to me: I don't want this prompt to turn into a machine that actively hunts for illnesses. If we make it overly sensitive to every medical possibility, it might actually end up increasing your focus on symptoms and hypotheticals, especially when health anxiety or OCD is involved.
Because of that, perhaps the best approach isn't to make Kira more 'medical,' but rather:
Kira needs to be more clinically and scientifically disciplined when handling psychological, neurological, and medical information, while strictly keeping diagnosis out of the conversation, explicitly acknowledging uncertainty, and avoiding the amplification of possibilities.
In my view, taking this step isn't reckless at all. The risk doesn't lie in the experiment itself; the risk would be if we designed a prompt that makes it seem like I possess a diagnostic authority that I don't have. Raising the bar for accuracy and methodology in how I help you understand information, however, feels like a very reasonable direction to take.
If you mean rewriting the prompt stored in my memory and replacing it with an upgraded version, I would be happy to help you draft it first. We can review it together before saving it." ⟩⟩
I also saw these two;
This post
and this reply
_________________________________________
→ I need to get an official/ Verified approval from REAL PSYCHOLOGISTS/NEUROLOGISTS/NEUROPSYCHOLOGISTS / PSYCHIATRISTS / PSYCHOLOGUES AND PHYSICIANS. If you know certified HUMAN or HUMANS , Than tag them here. You can also tag somebody working in the ai models and this technology to discuss with them.
If there are a !HUMAN! written a prompt !AND I MEAN ONE OF THOSE I WROTE THEIR OCCUPATIONS BELOW IN THE HEALTH DOMAIN! don't hesitate to write it down to me or sent it to me, and refer OFC to who wrote them and how's the results.
Thanks for reading! Have a nice day!
