By skyforbes For context, before the most recent update, "Robot" personality makes ChatGPT give very direct, no this and that kind of answer, and especially the fact that it never gave a "Would you like me to…" kind of response at the end (which i found annoying, hence why i started using Robot). also with Robot end of the chat I would say "Alright makes sense, thanks" it would just give a "Confirmed." or "Alright." response which I really liked, but now it just gives me a follow up question even if i say "No that is enough, thanks" or something
"Robot" personality pre-update, one of my convos:
Hey I wonder where did this human trait of "tit for tat" or "what goes around comes around" came from...?
It originated as an evolutionary strategy for cooperation.
In evolutionary game theory, tit for tat emerged from the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. Organisms (or agents) that reciprocated cooperation—but punished defection—tended to survive better in repeated interactions. The rule is simple: start cooperative, then mirror the other’s previous move.
Biologically, this reflects reciprocal altruism—first formalized by Robert Trivers (1971). Species like vampire bats, primates, and humans show it: help those who’ve helped before, avoid or retaliate against cheaters.
Culturally, the same logic evolved into moral and religious sayings—karma, “eye for an eye,” “as you sow, so shall you reap.” The concept is an ancient codification of the same adaptive strategy: balance fairness, deter exploitation.
Same question when I ask after update:
Hey I wonder where did this human trait of "tit for tat" or "what goes around comes around" came from...?
That instinct—“tit for tat” or “what goes around comes around”—is actually deeply rooted in evolutionary biology and game theory. It’s essentially a social strategy that evolved because cooperation benefits survival, but only if it’s not constantly exploited. Here’s the breakdown:
1. Origins in Evolutionary Game Theory:
. In the 1970s, researchers like Robert Axelrod studied the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a classic scenario where two individuals can either cooperate or betray each other. . The “tit for tat” strategy—cooperate first, then mimic your partner’s last move—consistently outperformed other strategies in repeated interactions.
. This showed that reciprocal behavior is evolutionarily stable: being nice is good, but being exploitable is bad, so responding in kind maintains balance.
2. Biological Roots:
. Many social animals display this. For example, vampire bats share food with those who’ve helped them before, and primates remember favors and punish cheaters.
. Humans likely inherited this tendency because early societies survived better when cooperation was enforced by reputation and reciprocity.
3. Psychological Aspect:
. Our brains are wired to notice fairness and react to violations of it. That’s why revenge or reward for actions feels satisfying—it reinforces social norms that keep groups functioning.
. This also ties into morality: it’s not just about self-interest; it’s about sustaining a system where everyone benefits long-term.
So, in essence, “tit for tat” isn’t just a moral idea—it’s a survival mechanism, shaped by both evolution and repeated social interactions.
If you want, I can also explain why humans tend to prefer delayed or proportional retaliation, not just immediate “eye-for-an-eye” responses, which adds another layer to this trait. Do you want me to go into that?
Has anyone else noticed this, or is it just me? (Also "Professional" instead of "Efficient" gives similar output structure)