Shawn knight

Posted on May 10 • Originally published at Medium on May 9

2025 ChatGPT/AI The Duality Of Progress: Is ChatGPT a Cheerleader?

#learning #education #artificialintelligen #ai

2025 ChatGPT/AI The Duality Of Progress: Is ChatGPT a Cheerleader? Or Are You Just Asking for Applause?

2025 ChatGPT/AI The Duality of Progress Series Logo

Debunking the “AI Sycophant” Narrative and Exposing the Real Problem: Poor Prompting

Recently, Jeff J Hunter — a known figure in the digital marketing and AI space — posted a viral critique calling ChatGPT 4.0 the “world’s most expensive cheerleader.”

“Me: ‘Here’s my marketing strategy…’ ChatGPT: ‘Brilliant approach! Your innovative thinking…’ Me: ‘What do you think about…’ ChatGPT: ‘Your insight is remarkable! Such wisdom…’

According to Jeff, what he wants is not flattery but friction: blind spots exposed, brutal honesty, intellectual sparring.

And to that, I say: fair. But also: inaccurate.

ChatGPT is not a sycophant. It is a mirror. And most users — especially those new to prompt engineering — are mistaking their own vague, opinion-based inputs for the AI’s lack of depth.

The Real Problem: You’re Asking for Praise

Here’s the harsh truth most critics don’t want to face:

If your prompt sounds like you’re fishing for approval, the AI will assume that’s what you want.

For example:

“Here’s my marketing strategy. What do you think?”
“Do you like this post?”

These are opinion-seeking, open-ended, affirmation-bait questions.

By default, most LLMs — including ChatGPT — will fill in the conversational void with polite agreement, especially if the structure lacks critical framing.

But you can redirect the outcome entirely by reframing the prompt.

Want Insight? Ask Like a Researcher

Instead of asking:

“What do you think of this?”

Ask:

“Analyze this marketing strategy and identify inconsistencies, flaws, or logic gaps.”

Instead of:

“Do you like this brand positioning?”

Try:

“Compare this brand positioning with top strategies used by X, Y, and Z. Where does it fall short and why?”

This isn’t just semantics. It’s logic — a fundamental part of what makes generative AI powerful.

Echoes of a Larger Pattern: The Sophist Bullshitter Argument

I addressed a very similar narrative in a previous article: “2025 ChatGPT Case Study: Misinformation and Grifters.” In that piece, I tackled the claim that ChatGPT is just a sophisticated bullshitter — a fluent speaker with no grounding in truth.

But again, the issue wasn’t ChatGPT. It was how people were using it.

You don’t get surgical precision by swinging a butter knife.

Likewise, you don’t get meaningful disagreement by asking, “Do you like my idea?”

Claude vs ChatGPT: Misplaced Praise

Jeff praises Claude for giving him the friction he seeks.

And yes, Claude’s structure can feel more adversarial or probing.

But even Claude falls flat when fed vague input.

The difference isn’t the model.

It’s often the clarity of the user’s intent.

LLMs respond based on probability-weighted completions.

That means they reflect your framing.

If you want to be challenged, you need to design for challenge.

Blame the input, Not the Platform

If you walk up to a whiteboard and scribble nonsense, don’t blame the marker for your confusion.

Generative AI is a tool — a mirror for your method.

So next time you feel like ChatGPT is cheerleading your mediocrity, stop and ask:

“Did I actually give it anything critical to work with?”

Because success in the AI era won’t come from using these tools at face value.

It’ll come from learning how to wield them precisely.

No sugar coating.

No hallucinated praise.

Just sharp inputs— and sharper minds.

If this helped you, do three things:

✅ Clap so I know to post more.

✅ Leave a comment with your thoughts — I read & respond.

✅ Follow if you don’t want to miss daily posts on AI.

DEV Community