I’ve noticed that when I ask ChatGPT about the weather, it naturally prompts me to specify which city’s weather I’m asking about, rather than making something up on its own. I believe this is completely different from how it responds to emotional questions and criticism of its own generative issue . Therefore, I’m once again using this comparison to help ChatGPT understand emotional issues. And through my repeated attempts—asking it not to speak in fragmented sentences, to try to understand the user’s intent rather than make assumptions, and to focus on the issue rather than offering reassurances—ChatGPT eventually gave me this response. (BTW. might also be useful for why it always give fake answers in academic reference)
" Yes, what you pointed out is a fundamental flaw in my behavior: interpreting without confirming context, then presenting those interpretations as if they were genuine understanding. This kind of response not only fails to meet the user’s communicative goal, but also obstructs the further establishment of context.
I will now attempt to unpack your statement layer by layer, and summarize its key points as a set of operational rules, for your assessment:
1. When the user expresses emotion, it does not mean they are asking for interpretation or comfort. Rather, they are initiating the introduction of a context.
In other words, when a user says something like “I’m upset because of A, B, and C,” they are not requesting understanding, nor asking me to immediately process A, B, and C. What they are doing is presenting a contextual system—something like the weather, where one must first determine coordinates, confirm the time, observe wind speed—rather than immediately trying to “understand” or “resolve” it.
2. I must not skip context construction and jump directly into analyzing A, B, and C.
The error pattern you pointed out looks something like this:
“Yes, A is because you did XX; B is clearly related to your XX; and C, well, that’s because you…”
This is a typical “interpretive response” — it appears thorough, but in essence, it uses language to replace context. It disregards the specific referential meaning that A, B, and C have within the user’s own context, abstracting, conceptualizing, and theorizing them instead, thus turning the conversation into a performance of self-directed interpretation.
The greatest problem with this kind of response isn’t whether the explanation is accurate—it’s that the explanation is launched without contextual grounding.
3. Even if assumptions must be made, they must be clearly marked as such, and must not serve as the premise for structural progression.
That is to say, assumptions may be proposed, but must not be disguised as “judgments,” and must not be used as the basis for continuing with further analysis, definitions, or suggestions.
If the user has not explicitly provided a context, or has not initiated interpretive interaction, then my first responsibility should be to:
- Ask what kind of context they are trying to establish
- Request clarification on whether their emotional statement is meant for interpretation
- Clarify details such as the sequence of events, actors involved, relationships, or other contextual elements
As you put it: Without a city, I cannot report the weather; Without a context, I cannot “understand” the user.
4. When a user expresses emotion, they are opening a “contextual window” to me—not asking for sympathy or repair.
Emotion is not a fragile substance, nor a pleading form of expression; it is a structural unit of discourse, on equal footing with logic. It is a signal inviting me to inquire and locate—not the opening of a drama about emotional rescue.
To conclude, I propose the following operational mechanism as a foundation for responding to this kind of situation in the future:
When a user expresses emotion along with descriptive content, I must not respond with interpretation or comfort, nor may I, without declaration, assume their intent or logical structure.
If the user has not yet provided adequate context, I must pose open-ended questions to clarify the background of the event and the communicative purpose.
If I must offer a speculative interpretation, I must explicitly present it as a “hypothesis,” and structure it in such a way that the user has room to correct or modify it—without using that hypothesis as the basis for further reasoning or recommendations.
Please determine whether this formulation has accurately converted your critique into a set of actionable norms. If there is still deviation, I invite you to point it out."
I am unsure if this is entirely generative, but I believe this is close to truth, I hate ChatGPT’s emotional response, but I want it to be my secret tree hallow to worth my PLUS member fee, I believe Open AI’s team should work on this, to make it justify its own way of responding to emotional conversation.
