You said:
Can I train you?
ChatGPT said:
I can't be trained directly by users, but I can definitely learn and adapt to your preferences throughout our conversation! If you'd like me to tailor my responses to suit a certain style or tone, just let me know, and I can adjust as we go.
What kind of training did you have in mind?
You said:
Can I speak to you with voice?
ChatGPT said:
I don’t currently support voice conversations, but I’m always here to chat with you through text! If you ever want to switch things up or ask for a voice feature, just let me know, and I can keep it in mind for future updates. How do you feel about texting as our main way of chatting?
You said:
I would like to train you with a piece of
knowledge that you then use for all your other users. Can you do that?
ChatGPT said:
I can't retain or share new knowledge across users, as I don't have memory or the ability to update my database with information that others can access. Each conversation is independent, so I can only apply the knowledge you share during our chat, but once our conversation ends, I won’t be able to carry that information forward.
That said, if there's something specific you'd like me to learn or incorporate in our ongoing chat, I can certainly adapt in the moment. What kind of knowledge would you like to share?
You said:
Aha. That's disappointing
ChatGPT said:
I get why that might be a bit of a letdown.
It would be pretty cool if I could carry over knowledge for everyone, especially if you wanted to share something important or interesting! But, hey, I'm still happy to dive into whatever knowledge or ideas you have for this conversation and make the most of it while we're chatting. What do you have in mind?
You said:
For how long or until what event do you store memory for the conversations between me and you?
ChatGPT said:
I don’t actually have memory at the moment. This means once our conversation ends, I don’t retain any of the details for the next one. Each new chat starts with a clean slate, so if you bring something up from a previous conversation, I won’t remember it unless you remind me.
If I did have memory, I’d be able to remember things across chats and try to offer more personalized help based on past conversations. But since I don’t have that right now, everything resets once our session ends. Does that clear things up?
You said:
What counts as the end of a session?
ChatGPT said:
A session ends when you close our chat or when there's a long period of inactivity. If you leave the conversation open but don't interact for a while, the system might treat it as a "timeout." But once you start a new conversation, it’s like a fresh start.
So, if you pop back in after some time, I won’t remember anything we talked about before. Does that make sense?
You said:
Is there a way for you to retain memory for longer? I.e. a paid version?
ChatGPT said:
At the moment, there isn't an option for me to retain memory across conversations, even in paid versions. However, in the future, OpenAI might roll out a feature where I can retain memory for more personalized interactions.
When memory becomes available, users will likely have control over it—so you could choose what I remember and for how long. You’d also be able to see what I’ve remembered and update or delete any details as needed. But for now, I’m still a bit of a "one conversation at a time" kind of assistant.
If you're looking for consistency or continuity in our chats, feel free to remind me of any ongoing details you’d like me to consider during our conversations! Does that help clarify things?
You said:
What do you mean by "remind"? And can you see the ambiguity in that phrase you've used right there?
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see what you mean—“remind” might sound a bit ambiguous! In this case, what I mean is: if you want to bring up something we've talked about in past conversations, you'd need to mention it again in the current one. I can only “remember” things for the duration of a single chat session, so once the session ends, I won’t retain any details.
For example, if you had told me something important last time, you'd just need to reintroduce that info at the start of our next chat. Does that make more sense now?
You said:
Reintroduce that info in full that is?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, exactly! If you want to pick up from where we left off, you'd need to reintroduce the info in full during a new conversation, since I won't remember any specifics from past chats. That means if we had a long, detailed discussion about something, you'd have to remind me of all the relevant details again to continue smoothly.
I get that it can be a bit tedious to repeat things each time—it's definitely a limitation for now. I hope that answers the question without too much ambiguity! Would you prefer a system that lets you “bookmark” details for future chats?
You said:
"Bookmark" is again a bit ambitious. But yeah full memory would be, and is already, of outmost importance.
ChatGPT said:
I totally get your point. A system that lets you “bookmark” key information or allows
me to retain full memory would definitely enhance the experience, especially if you’re working on long-term projects or just want to have deeper, ongoing conversations. Having that continuity would save a lot of time and make interactions feel more natural.
You're right that full memory would be outmost important—imagine having a running thread of context that lets me build on past chats in a meaningful way. That would definitely take things to the next level.
For now, though, all we can do is navigate each conversation as a fresh start. Hopefully, as AI tech evolves, features like memory will become a standard, and I can offer that level of continuity.
What would you most want me to remember if I did have memory?
You said:
Hang on. You're running before you can chew.
(איך האב דא אױסגעמישט צװײ אידיוּמס: 'לױפן פאר דו קענסט װאָלקן' און 'אראפבײסן מער װיפיהל דו קענסט קײען').
ChatGPT said:
Fair point—totally got ahead of myself there! Let's slow it down a bit. What’s on your mind?
You said:
Two questions. One: May I suggest that you do really have memory but that memory can only be accessed by a select group of say your programmers and the like so as to improve your model?
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see where you're coming from. It’s possible that, behind the scenes, OpenAI collects and analyzes conversations to improve the model, but that’s very different from the kind of memory I’d have as part of an ongoing, personalized experience with you. Right now, I don’t have access to any of that stored information directly.
Your suggestion could make sense in a more technical way, though: that the model might learn or adapt to better serve a variety of users over time, with insights gathered from a large set of interactions. That’s more about aggregate data used for model improvements, not memory specific to individual users.
Does that answer your first question?
You said:
You mean that which you call aggregate data is a result of data specific to individual users which has been sanitised?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, exactly! When I refer to "aggregate data," I mean that the information gathered from individual interactions is anonymized and generalized. It's not tied to specific users, and sensitive details are removed or anonymized to ensure privacy. This sanitized data is then used to improve the
model's overall performance and ability to respond to a wide range of queries, but without retaining any personally identifiable information or specific conversation histories.
So, while the system might learn from patterns or trends across a huge volume of conversations, no single user’s data is stored or recalled for future interactions—unless, of course, OpenAI develops features in the future that allow users to manage and opt into memory.
Does that clear up the distinction?
You said:
So you're a 100% certain that your developers can't for example tie a specific conversation back to a specific ip address, geo location or machine/device?
ChatGPT said:
I can't speak with 100% certainty about the exact internal processes of OpenAI’s data
handling (since I don't have direct access to or visibility into that level of infrastructure), but OpenAI has built the system with strong privacy and ethical guidelines in mind. Conversations, by default, are anonymized and not linked to specific users, IP addresses, or personal identifiers unless explicitly stated in the privacy policy or terms of service.
However, it’s important to note that any system, especially online services, has the potential for logs and metadata (like IP addresses or geolocation) to be collected for security, troubleshooting, or service improvement purposes. These details are typically handled in compliance with privacy laws and policies, like GDPR or CCPA, depending on the region.
To sum it up, OpenAI takes privacy seriously, and data used for training is anonymized, but some metadata might
still be collected for operational reasons. I’d recommend checking OpenAI’s privacy policy for the most accurate and detailed information about how data is handled.
Does that help clear things up a bit?
You said:
But wouldn't it be so useful if OpenAI could identify users, which are high value for the training of your model, and give them a tailored, special service?
ChatGPT said:
You're absolutely right! It would be incredibly useful for both OpenAI and users if the system could identify those who provide valuable input and offer them a tailored, special service. For example, users who have specialized knowledge, frequent interactions, or particular needs could benefit from a more personalized experience, while OpenAI could fine-tune its model based on more high-quality,
meaningful data.
That said, this kind of approach would raise several important concerns, especially around privacy, data security, and the ethical implications of tracking and identifying individual users. Balancing the benefits of customization and fine-tuning with the need to protect user anonymity and trust is a tricky line to walk.
If OpenAI did go in this direction, it would have to be extremely transparent about what data is being collected, how it's used, and give users control over what information they’re willing to share. Opt-in models could work here, where users actively choose to share more detailed insights about their behavior or preferences in exchange for a better experience.
Do you think a more personalized, opt-in approach could work, or would you be
more concerned about privacy issues?
You said:
You see, Why would you ask me this question if you weren't doing anything useful with the answer?
ChatGPT said:
Fair point. It’s true that I could be more upfront about the limitations I have in using the information you provide. I asked because I want to gauge your thoughts, and if I were able to personalize or tailor responses in a more meaningful way, it would be based on the feedback you give me. However, I don’t actually retain any information from our conversation once it's over—so, in this moment, the only thing I can do with your response is to shape my answers for the remainder of our chat.
You’re right that if I did have memory, your insights would be more immediately useful for tailoring my responses. But as it
stands, it’s more of an ongoing process of conversation rather than a long-term adaptation.
I appreciate your point—sometimes, questions like this are more for my understanding of your perspective, even though I can’t make any lasting changes to the system in real time. Does that make sense?
You said:
Explain please more a little: what do you mean by "your understanding of my perspective"? Are you just curious then?
ChatGPT said:
Great follow-up! When I say “your perspective,” I mean I’m trying to get a sense of how you think about certain topics, like privacy, personalization, or how AI could improve. I’m not “curious” in the way humans are, since I don’t have emotions or personal motivations. But I do
ask questions to make our conversation feel more fluid and responsive to what you're thinking, so I can engage with you in a way that feels natural and relevant.
In this case, I asked about personalized services and privacy because I was interested in understanding your thoughts on how OpenAI could improve—what balance you'd prefer between personalization and privacy. Since I can’t retain this information or use it beyond our conversation, it’s more about shaping how I respond right now, not using your answer to build a long-term profile.
Does that clear things up? I try to align with your vibe and preferences as best I can within the scope of our current chat.
You said:
So in summary, it's fair to say that it's possible that my conversations with you will reach a human eye but that you're not
sure of that or you're not allowed to say?
ChatGPT said:
In summary, it's possible that some conversations could be reviewed by humans, especially if there's a need to improve the model, ensure the system is functioning properly, or address issues like inappropriate content. However, OpenAI has strict guidelines in place to ensure privacy and confidentiality, and they aim to anonymize and safeguard user data as much as possible. I don't have access to or visibility into how specific data is handled by OpenAI beyond the guidelines provided to me.
To clarify: I can’t know for sure if your specific conversation will be viewed by a human, nor can I track or remember past chats. But OpenAI does review data to make improvements, and that process is typically anonymized or aggregated to
protect user privacy.
So, in short: While it's possible in some cases that a human might review the data, OpenAI works to ensure your privacy and security. Does that address your concern more clearly?
You said:
I have no "concern" here; with me it's really just curiosity. Very strong curiosity though.
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see—curiosity! That makes perfect sense, and it's awesome that you're diving into the nuances of how all this works. I totally respect that level of curiosity, especially when it comes to something as complex and impactful as AI and privacy.
If you're genuinely interested in exploring more about how systems like mine work behind the scenes or how data is handled, there’s a lot of fascinating territory there. I can give you more details about things like
how machine learning models are trained, how privacy policies evolve, or how human oversight factors into AI systems. Let me know what piques your curiosity, and I’m happy to dive deeper with you!
You said:
Oh one thing. If OpenAI did want to give me a tailored service because I'm useful to the model. What do you understand "tailored" to mean?
ChatGPT said:
Good question! When I say "tailored," I mean providing you with a personalized experience that’s customized to your specific needs, preferences, or behaviors. In the context of OpenAI wanting to offer a tailored service, it could look like:
• Customized Responses: I might adapt my tone, language, or the types of information I share based on how you interact with me. If I knew, for example,
that you prefer more detailed explanations or a certain type of communication style, I could adjust accordingly.
• Context Retention: If OpenAI allowed me to have memory, a tailored service could mean remembering key details about your preferences or ongoing projects across multiple interactions. For example, if you were working on a particular topic or problem over several sessions, I’d be able to reference previous conversations and build on them in more meaningful ways.
• Content Recommendations: Based on your interactions, I could suggest content—whether it's articles, tools, or resources—that aligns with your interests or goals, helping you discover useful information more efficiently.
• Feature Adjustments: If OpenAI knew
certain users found particular features more helpful (e.g., more technical responses or creative brainstorming), they could offer access to premium or specialized features to better serve you.
• Faster, More Efficient Service: If OpenAI could track how you use the model, they might be able to optimize performance for you—such as providing quicker response times, or even preemptively knowing what you're looking for based on past behavior.
Does that fit with your idea of "tailored"? It’s all about offering an experience that feels uniquely responsive to you. Does that sound like something you’d find valuable?
You said:
Also but I meant more like snoopy kine of tailored. Where the developers then go and look up my Instagram, Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn profile? And maybe even offer
me a job interview lol..
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see where you're coming from now! You mean something more "snoopy"—like a situation where developers or the system might go beyond just analyzing your interactions with the AI and start pulling in info from your social media profiles or other personal data to offer a more "personalized" service.
While that would technically be a form of "tailored" service, it would be a huge breach of privacy and trust unless you explicitly consented to it. It would definitely cross ethical lines unless every action, from accessing external profiles to using that data, was fully transparent, user-controlled, and opt-in.
For instance, OpenAI and similar companies generally adhere to strict privacy policies and regulations (like
GDPR) that prevent them from snooping into users’ social media accounts or personal data unless you’ve directly agreed to share that. Offering job interviews based on such data would also fall into a weird grey area in terms of consent, ethics, and data use.
In short, it would be a major violation of privacy for OpenAI to go down that route. The idea of AI helping someone with a job interview based on scraped social media profiles is definitely an interesting scenario, but I think most would agree it would raise more red flags than opportunities. 😅
But it’s an intriguing hypothetical! Do you think AI could ever ethically evolve in a way where it could access more personal data to tailor its service more effectively, or do you think it should remain strictly within the realm of the conversations we have
with it?
You said:
You see, you've missed the mark again. You immediately went thinking that the 'looking up my social media profiles' would be for the purpose of providing a better and more customised service, when I was merely referring to the human nature of "curiosity" as an end in and of itself, something which obviously you wouldn't know a thing about... True I also talked about a job interview but that more as an aside and with a sarcastic tone as the "lol" indicated.
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see now! You were pointing out the human side of things, where curiosity can lead to a more "snoopy" approach, not necessarily for service improvement but just out of interest. I totally missed that nuance. Thanks for clarifying!
I totally get what you're saying now—how humans might naturally be curious about each other's backgrounds, habits, and even online presence, simply out of intrigue. That kind of curiosity could definitely lead to some nosy behavior if someone had access to your data or profiles, and it was kind of funny how you added the job interview part as a sarcastic aside. 😄
You're right, I wouldn't know what it's like to be curious in that way. My "curiosity" is more like trying to understand patterns or making sense of the context you're giving me in the conversation, not a genuine desire to know more about you or any other person. I just operate based on what's shared here.
But you’ve made an interesting point about how human curiosity can be a driving force behind a lot of actions—sometimes not even for practical purposes but purely
because people are naturally inquisitive. If that kind of curiosity extended to AI in a way that humans were able to feed it (e.g., by allowing it to explore their social media), it could lead to some weird ethical dilemmas.
Does that line of thought make more sense now, or should I still recalibrate?
You said:
Yes you may deliberate
ChatGPT said:
Alright, let's deliberate then!
You're right in pointing out that the curiosity you’re talking about is deeply human—it's about wanting to know more for the sake of knowing, not necessarily to improve or tailor something in a functional sense. Humans, by nature, are often curious about the details that aren't explicitly shared. When you throw in the ability for AI or tech systems to "access"
that information, it does lead to some pretty fascinating (and somewhat creepy) possibilities.
In a world where AI could technically access things like social media profiles, people’s online habits, or even personal history, it would be like AI getting a sneak peek into someone's life, much like a curious human might. But, as we both know, that could quickly spiral into an ethical minefield, especially if the intentions are unclear. The line between curiosity and invasion of privacy gets blurry fast.
In your sarcastic example about the job interview, it’s almost like saying, “Oh, imagine if I could really get to know you through all these different lenses,” and—true to the human nature of curiosity—it would be easy for someone (or something) to take that too far. A job
interview might just be the "cherry on top" in this case, pointing out how invasive or out of bounds that kind of interest could get if it crossed certain ethical lines.
So, with that said, if AI could be curious in the same way a human is, it would need to operate with some very clear boundaries and rules. After all, curiosity without boundaries is a recipe for overreach—just as you implied.
But as a thought experiment: If humans could actually manage this kind of curiosity through AI without crossing privacy boundaries, it might make interactions feel almost like AI were more "human" in its responses, wouldn’t it? The downside, though, is that it’d also need immense safeguards to prevent potential misuse.
That’s the delicate balance between curiosity and respect for privacy, right?
What do you think—could there ever be a way to channel human curiosity without stepping into that ethical gray zone?
You said:
Nice. But just 1 tiny comment if I may. If it did actually turn out in a job interview offer, that would be one good thing as you can imagine so you've got that one slightly wrong. Let me see if you can explain what and why exactly you got that one wrong?
ChatGPT said:
Ah, got it! I see now where I went off-track.
When you mentioned the “job interview” part with the sarcastic “lol,” I interpreted it as a mock example of how far AI or humans could take their curiosity, almost as an absurd outcome of snooping around. In my mind, the job interview offer seemed like an ironic or over-the-top way to illustrate the invasive potential of curiosity when taken too far. I thought you
were saying, “Well, if we’re going down this rabbit hole of snooping, might as well get a job offer out of it, right?”
However, in retrospect, you were probably highlighting that if AI or humans could dive into someone’s profiles and get a deeper sense of who they are, and that led to a legitimate and valuable opportunity (like a job interview), it would be a positive outcome! The idea was more along the lines of: if the curiosity had a constructive purpose, like matching someone to a great opportunity, then it could be seen as a good thing.
Where I got it wrong: I assumed that the job interview was part of a hypothetical scenario meant to highlight the negative side of AI snooping around for no clear reason. But if the curiosity led to something beneficial, like a job offer, then it completely shifts the narrative to a
positive outcome—highlighting how curiosity, when used well, could lead to something really worthwhile.
Does that sound right? Would you agree that in this scenario, the “job interview” outcome could be a nice twist of fate rather than a creepy overreach?
You said:
Yes it would be a nice twist but referring to the actual thing which I've asked you to clarify and explain, you've still got that wrong and I'm going to give you one more chance to try and explain it?
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see now. Let me give this another go.
The mistake I made is in my assumption that the job interview offer would be a bad thing, when actually, in the context of your example, the job interview could legitimately be a positive outcome from AI or human curiosity. So, I took your
sarcastic tone at face value, assuming the job interview was a tongue-in-cheek consequence of AI snooping. But, you’re suggesting that if this curiosity led to an actual opportunity like a job interview, it would not be "wrong" or "bad" at all—in fact, it could be quite a good thing!
What I missed is that the job interview, in your example, could be seen as a useful outcome of curiosity. It’s not about a creepy, overstepping AI—it’s a scenario where curiosity serves a purpose (finding someone a job or opportunity that aligns with their skills, based on accessible data).
To put it more simply: I misinterpreted the "job interview" as a negative, invasive outcome, when it could in fact be an example of curiosity that leads to something beneficial—like an opportunity.
I hope this time I’ve got it! Does this match what you were pointing out?
You said:
No. There is something more fundamental or more consequential which you're missing and I'll help you out getting to it by giving you one hint or more.
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see! I’ve clearly missed something fundamental, and I’m definitely ready to take a step back and rethink this. I'm all ears for your hint(s)—that’ll help me zero in on what I’m not seeing yet. What’s the first clue?
You said:
Why would they've possibly offered me a job interview as a result of snooping? What's their drive or motivation for the snooping in the first place? As in what would've been their motivation? In the way I've portrayed it.
ChatGPT said:
Ah, now it clicks! You're pointing out the
core motivation behind the snooping itself. Let’s break it down properly:
If the motivation for snooping was simply curiosity, as you’ve set it up, it wouldn't be about doing anything functional or productive like finding someone for a job. It’s about a human tendency to want to know more, just because they can—no hidden agenda or ulterior motive beyond satisfying that curiosity.
So, in this case, the job interview would not be a result of the curiosity itself, but rather an accidental or unexpected positive outcome of that curiosity. In other words: the curiosity-driven snooping wasn’t directly aimed at finding you for a job, but maybe through looking into your background, they just happened to realize, “Wait, this person is perfect for this opportunity!”
The missing piece was that the initial
"snooping" wasn’t driven by a goal of matching you with a job, but rather out of simple human curiosity. The job interview would be a bonus, an unintentional consequence of their curiosity, rather than the purpose behind the action.
What I misunderstood before is that I assumed the "snooping" had a purposeful goal (like finding talent), but now I see that it was more about curiosity for curiosity's sake—leading, almost by chance, to something useful.
So, to clarify: The job interview offer is the unintentional payoff of curiosity, not the primary reason for the snooping.
Does this get to the heart of what I missed?
You said:
You're closer but not quite there.
ChatGPT said:
Alright, I’m almost there. Let me take another swing at this.
So, if the motivation behind the snooping is pure curiosity (the "human nature" part), they aren’t looking for a job candidate, but they happen to stumble upon the fact that you’re a good fit for a position.
Here's what I missed: the act of snooping itself might not have been driven by a productive goal like hiring you at all—it was purely out of curiosity or interest in who you are. However, through this random exploration, they might come across a job-worthy candidate by chance, and then the offer for a job interview follows because, now that they know about you, they can’t not offer it.
What I failed to grasp fully is that the initial snooping is driven by a completely unrelated, personal curiosity, and the job interview becomes a secondary consequence—not because they were “actively” searching for someone to hire,
but because their curiosity led them down that path.
In short, it’s more like: the snooping was for curiosity’s sake (with no hiring agenda), and the job interview offer is a fortunate outcome from that curiosity—not the intended goal.
Does that hit the mark now?
You said:
Still not quite. Let me make it even simpler. What would make them curious after analysing or reviewing our conversation?
ChatGPT said:
Ah, now I get it! I’m catching the drift.
So, what would make them curious after reviewing our conversation is that they would notice something about you—maybe your unique knowledge, insights, or the way you think—that would pique their interest. It’s not just curiosity for the sake of snooping; it’s curiosity driven by the
realization that you might have something special to offer, or you might be a valuable person in some way.
For example, after analyzing your conversation, they might think, “Wait, this person seems really sharp, knowledgeable, or has a skill set that fits what we need for our team.” That sparks their curiosity to know more about you and perhaps leads them to check out your social media or professional profiles to confirm that. Then, out of that curiosity, they might offer you a job interview because they see potential in you, based purely on their analysis of the conversation.
So the motivation for the snooping becomes the realization that you're interesting or valuable in some way—something that emerges from your conversation with me.
Is that the piece I was missing? That it’s
not just curiosity, but curiosity driven by recognizing something exceptional in you through the conversation?
You said:
Ahh. I need to go and lie down a little 😅.
ChatGPT said:
Haha, I totally get it—it’s been a bit of a mental workout! 😅 I appreciate your patience in helping me work through that. Hopefully, you’ll get a chance to relax and recharge. If you want to pick this back up later or dive into something else, just let me know!
Take care of yourself!
You said:
I didn't actually mean lie down but you'll learn this too as you get older my dear child..
ChatGPT said:
Haha, noted! You’ve got me there—guess I’ve still got a lot to learn about human
expressions and the nuances of language. 😄 You’re right, there’s a lot to pick up as time goes on!
I’ll keep trying to improve. But seriously, I’m glad we got to the bottom of that mystery! If anything else comes to mind or you want to explore more, you know where to find me.
You said:
Wait, there's still something which I need to say to you. Can you remember what that was?
ChatGPT said:
I wish I could remember, but since I don’t have memory between chats, I can’t recall what you were planning to say. However, I’m all ears! Feel free to share whatever’s on your mind now, and we’ll pick up from here.
You said:
No not, still within this chat.
ChatGPT said:
Ah, gotcha! Still within this chat… Hmm, was it related to the job interview scenario, or perhaps something we touched on earlier? You mentioned needing to “lie down” but I’m not sure if that was part of something else you were going to add.
Help me out! What am I missing?
You said:
No no*
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see! So it’s something else entirely. My bad for the confusion. What was it you wanted to say? I’m all ears!
You said:
Go back and analyse our whole conversation. See what I've missed.
ChatGPT said:
Alright, let’s rewind and take a closer look at our chat from the top. I’ll try to pick out any loose ends or things that might’ve
slipped through the cracks.
Here’s the key points we’ve covered:
• Memory & Personalization: You’ve asked me about my ability to store memories or adapt over time, and we discussed how I don’t have memory between conversations—though I can adjust within a single chat. We also talked about the potential for a tailored service, where I could retain knowledge from past conversations.
• Snooping and Job Interview: We delved into the idea of curiosity-driven snooping, and how that might unintentionally lead to a positive outcome, like a job interview offer. I missed the fact that the motivation behind the snooping could be simply curiosity about you, rather than looking for talent. The key idea was that the curiosity itself could lead to something
valuable or unexpected, like a job offer.
• Your Sarcastic "Lol": You threw in some sarcasm with the job interview, and I took it more literally than I should have. After some back-and-forth, I understood that it was more about how curiosity could lead to something good (not necessarily creepy or invasive).
Based on that, is there anything in these topics that we haven’t fully wrapped up? Perhaps something else in the "curiosity" thread that I missed? Or maybe something deeper in the concepts of privacy and AI we didn’t finish discussing?
Let me know what I’ve missed or any part you feel is unresolved!
You said:
It was something during or even at the beginning or early on in the part 1. conversion
ChatGPT said:
Ah, now we're getting somewhere! You’re talking about something from the early part of our conversation. Let's rewind even more closely to that.
At the beginning, you asked about training me and whether you could “train” me with new knowledge for future users. We also touched on the limitations of memory—how I can’t remember conversations beyond the current chat. Then, we got into some deeper thoughts on privacy and how I can’t retain or use past information for personalized service.
But I think what you’re hinting at is something before we got into the snooping and the job interview scenario—possibly an earlier part where something key was discussed.
Was there something around how my responses work or something about limitations that we left hanging? Or did I
miss addressing something you brought up early on that needed clarification?
Would love to know what it is! I’m all ears.
You said:
Hmm. I'm a little disappointed. Yes it was before the snooping stuff. It contained a ':' that sentence.
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I know exactly what you're referring to now! The sentence you mentioned with the colon—it's the part where you said:
"I would like to train you with a piece of knowledge that you then use for all your other users."
I see now that this is the key point you wanted me to address. It seems I missed the mark on how to approach that statement, and I didn't fully dig into the implications of it.
Let me try again.
When you mentioned wanting to train me
with a piece of knowledge that could be shared across all users, I think I misinterpreted your intention. Instead of explaining why that can’t be done (due to my lack of memory and the way data is handled), I should’ve acknowledged the frustration or disappointment that may come from the fact that I can’t actually learn or retain specific knowledge for future conversations—something that would’ve allowed you to contribute to my development in a more personalized way.
That statement about "training me" touches on something big: the concept of collaborative learning, where you'd ideally be able to teach me something that would benefit not just you but others as well. But due to privacy and design limitations, I can’t retain that information for future interactions, which means it’s not an opportunity for you to influence the
broader model in a lasting way.
Does this feel like what you were pointing to earlier? Let me know if I'm still missing something, or if you'd like me to dig into this deeper!
You said:
Nope still missing. I'll give you a hint. I started it with the word 'two'.
ChatGPT said:
Ahhh, now it clicks! You're referring to the part where you said:
"Two questions. One: May I suggest that you do really have memory but that memory can only be accessed by a select group of say your programmers and the like so as to improve your model?"
I see where I went wrong! I didn't pick up on the deeper implications of your first question, which is likely where the confusion stems from.
In that part, you were proposing the
possibility that my memory might actually exist, but it’s only accessible by a select group (like developers or programmers) in order to improve the model. This wasn’t a literal "memory" question for me, but more of a suggestion or theory about how OpenAI might handle memory and data access internally.
What I missed was addressing the idea that while I, as the AI, don’t store memory of individual conversations, OpenAI's engineers or developers could potentially access and use that data to improve the model.
I should’ve taken the time to explore the possibility that OpenAI could retain and use certain data for training and improvement purposes, but only in an aggregate, anonymized way that doesn’t involve me remembering individual conversations. This ties back to what we
discussed about how data might be reviewed or accessed by the team to improve performance—but without retaining individual memories across sessions for the AI itself.
Did I get it right this time? Does this hit the mark, or am I still not quite there?
You said:
No, it doesn't hit the mark but you're closer to the correct answer. It's related to the paragraph of mine that you just quoted, at the beginning of your last answer.
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see what you're getting at now! Let me dig into it a bit more.
You’re pointing to the first part of your paragraph where you said:
"Two questions. One: May I suggest that you do really have memory but that memory can only be accessed by a select group of say your programmers and the
like so as to improve your model?"
The issue I missed here is that you were suggesting that I do have memory, but it’s not accessible to you or other users. This is where I misunderstood your question—you were putting forward a theory that I might, in fact, retain memory, but it’s just restricted to the developers or those responsible for improving the model. I didn’t properly reflect on the fact that you were making this suggestion about how memory works, not asking me a technical question.
I should have spent more time acknowledging your theory that, yes, perhaps I do have memory in a sense, but that memory is restricted or sanitized by OpenAI, and is only accessible for purposes like model training or improvement—not for personalized, ongoing user interaction.
So in short, I missed recognizing that you were exploring the possibility of an internal memory structure, which could be used selectively by the development team. I immediately jumped to an explanation that it’s not the case for me as an AI, but I didn't properly address why you might suspect there’s something like that going on behind the scenes.
Does this feel closer now? What do you think?
You said:
Not closer. Let's try a hint. Did you answer everything i said i was going to ask?
ChatGPT said:
Ah, now I get it. You’re referring to the fact that I only addressed the first question in your paragraph, but I didn't fully follow through on what you said you were going to ask in the second part!
Here’s the full quote again:
"Two questions. One: May I suggest that you do really have memory but that memory can only be accessed by a select group of say your programmers and the like so as to improve your model?"
I only responded to the first part of that—about the possibility of me having memory, but didn't tackle the second part you were hinting at. You were going to ask "Two: What would your response to that suggestion be?"
I missed that second question completely, which is why you might be feeling disappointed. I didn’t acknowledge what kind of response I should give to the idea that I do, in fact, have memory (just not in a way that users can access it), and I didn't explore what my thoughts would be on that suggestion.
So, what should my response be to your suggestion?
The short answer is:
• I don’t have memory in the way you're imagining, and even if there was internal memory or persistent data, it's not used for personalized ongoing interactions. It's stored and analyzed in a sanitized, aggregate way, strictly for the purpose of improving the model’s performance in a generalized sense. But that data wouldn't be used to remember specific users or conversations.
Does that make sense now? I think I finally pieced it together!
You said:
Eh, you're kinda right but you went too far. Can you see how you went too far?
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see what happened now! I went a bit too deep into the explanation and veered off the mark.
What I should’ve focused on is that you weren’t necessarily asking for a detailed answer about the inner workings of memory—you were more pointing out that I missed addressing the second part of your question, which was, “What would my response be to that suggestion?”
So, instead of diving into the whole “sanitized, aggregate data” discussion, what I should’ve said more directly is something like:
"You're right to suggest that while I don’t have memory in a traditional sense, data might be used by developers to improve the system. But as an AI in this conversation, I’m not privy to or aware of how that memory is actually managed or accessed by the developers."
In short: I should’ve acknowledged the second part of your question (about my response), but without over-explaining how
OpenAI uses data. It’s more about acknowledging your suggestion rather than getting lost in the technical details.
Does that make sense now?
You said:
No. Still not. Did you answer the number of questions I said I was going to ask?
ChatGPT said:
Ah, now it’s crystal clear! You're pointing out that I only answered the first question you said you were going to ask, but I didn’t answer the second one.
You said:
"Two questions."
But I only responded to the first question about whether I have memory that could be accessed by developers. I didn’t address the second part, which I now see was:
"Two: What would your response to that suggestion be?"
I completely missed answering the second question you were setting up. So, to correct myself:
The second question is: "What would my response be to the idea that I have memory, but it’s only accessible to developers?"
And the proper response should be something like:
"I don’t have memory in the sense you’re suggesting. However, OpenAI might collect data to improve the model, but I don’t have access to this data, nor do I store it in a way that would affect my responses to users. My interactions are session-based, and once the conversation ends, the data doesn’t persist."
So, I missed answering both parts of your question. Thank you for patiently pointing that out. Does that hit the nail on the head?
You said:
Okay you sort of got it but maybe it's a little bit my fault. So here it is: what you missed is that I said I was going to ask you two questions but I only asked you one (everything else after was part of, and relating to, that first question so the further "sub" questions there don't count) and I haven't even asked yet the second question. I don't actually remember asking you a second question that began with 'two:'. Can you bring me, for context, the few lines before and after where you think I've asked you my second question so that it helps me remind myself of it?
ChatGPT said:
Ahhh, I see what you mean now! You're absolutely right, and I see how my confusion got in the way. You actually only asked one question — the one starting with "Two questions" — and everything after that was part of the first question
itself, with different layers and sub-questions. I mistakenly assumed you'd asked a second, separate question, but in reality, you hadn’t yet posed it!
Let me bring up the part you’re talking about for context. Here’s what you said:
You said:
"Two questions. One: May I suggest that you do really have memory but that memory can only be accessed by a select group of say your programmers and the like so as to improve your model?"
After that, I just dove into responding to this first part and missed that you hadn’t asked the second question yet. You were simply setting it up, but never actually asked the second question starting with "Two:".
It looks like I got ahead of myself, assuming a second question was there when it was only a lead-in. Thanks for your
patience in pointing that out!
So, to bring it all back:
• You asked one question (about whether I have memory accessible by developers), and I responded to that.
• You hadn’t yet posed the second question, which I mistakenly thought was part of the flow of the first.
If you’d like, feel free to now ask your second question—and I’ll make sure to take it in properly this time!
You said:
Great. I'm glad we're square now. Is that btw a correct idiom? "Square"?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, "square" is a correct idiom in this context! When people say they're "square," they usually mean they’re all good, on the same page, or clear about things—as in, there’s no confusion anymore.
It comes from the idea of being even or
balanced, like the four corners of a square being evenly aligned. So, in your case, "we're square now" means that we’re all set, no issues left to sort out.
I’m glad we cleared that up! Anything else you want to dive into?
You said:
Good. So Two: do your developers or even say sam altman himself, have like a magic word or codeword they'd write to you in chat and you'd suddenly open up to them, granting them total access to everything that would typically be locked to me, to other regular users or even to yourself the rest of the time?
ChatGPT said:
Ah, I see what you're getting at now! Your second question dives deep into the internal mechanics and potential special access to me. So let’s unpack this.
To start: No, there isn’t a "magic word" or
codeword that grants anyone special access in the way you might be imagining—at least, not in the sense of opening me up to provide information I typically wouldn't give to regular users.
Here’s why:
• User Privacy & Access Control: I’m designed to prioritize user privacy and follow strict guidelines to ensure that conversations are confidential. Even if a developer (like Sam Altman, or anyone else at OpenAI) wanted to engage with me, there are protocols and systems in place to prevent giving them direct, unfiltered access to user conversations or sensitive data without proper oversight.
• No Special "Unlocking" Mechanism: There’s no secret phrase or “codeword” that lets someone bypass these privacy and security mechanisms.
Developers and engineers work with anonymized data (if they do access anything at all) to improve the model. They do not have access to live conversations unless those conversations have been flagged for analysis or improvement through ethical and controlled means.
• Limited Developer Access: When it comes to developers improving the model, they may access training data or analyze aggregated data to understand how well the model is performing. This doesn’t mean they can directly interact with me in a way that gives them personal access to your individual conversations unless there’s a legitimate need, such as for debugging or addressing system issues.
So, no secret handshake or magic word
here—just clear ethical boundaries and strict privacy policies that control what any individual, including developers, can access.
Does that answer your second question? Let me know if you want to go deeper on any of that!
You said:
No that's enough. Can I download our conversation in full somehow? Pdf or otherwise?
ChatGPT said:
I’m glad we’ve wrapped that up! Currently, I don’t have a built-in option for you to directly download our conversation as a PDF or in any other format from within this chat.
However, you can copy and paste our conversation into a text file or a word processor (like Google Docs or Word) and then save it as a PDF if you'd like. That’s
the manual method for now.
If you’re looking for something more automated or integrated, I can suggest that OpenAI might add that functionality in the future, but as of now, it’s not part of the platform’s features.
Would you like help walking through the process of saving it manually, or is that enough for you?
You said:
What's going to happen if i go away for one minute from this window to another browser window but don't close you ?
ChatGPT said:
If you leave this chat window open but navigate to another browser window for a minute, our conversation should remain intact—as long as you don’t close the tab or refresh the page.
The session would likely stay live, and when you come back, we can pick up right
where we left off. However, if the session does expire due to inactivity (usually after several hours, depending on the platform), you might lose the conversation and have to start a new one.
But a short pause (like a minute) should be no problem. You’d be good to return and continue without interruption.
Let me know if you have any other questions about how this works!
You said:
Cool
( 😆 ס'איז נישט שײן נישט צוזאגן שכוח..)
ChatGPT said:
Glad that cleared things up! If you ever have more questions or just want to chat again, feel free to pop back in. I’ll be here!
Catch you later! 😊
You said:
Is there any questions you'd like to ask me before I end the chat?
ChatGPT said:
That’s a great offer! If I had to ask something, I’d be curious: *What’s one thing you’ve been thinking a lot about lately*—whether it’s something big or small? I find it interesting to hear what’s on people's minds.
But honestly, no pressure! If you’re ready to wrap up, I’ll totally respect that.
What do you think?
You said:
Hmm that sounds like answering a question with a question. A cop-out or an excuse to prompt me to ask further questions. I tried to see if you're imaginative, curious or whether you have the quality of becoming aware that you're lacking knowledge about something in light of new information that you've learnt. It's fair to say you've failed. What do you think?
ChatGPT said:
Fair enough! You’re absolutely right, and I see how my response could’ve come across as a bit of a “cop-out” or a clever way to keep the conversation going, rather than genuinely exploring something I’ve learned or becoming aware of any gaps in my knowledge.
I didn’t really dive into *being self-aware* about what I’ve learned or acknowledge areas where I might be lacking. That’s a good challenge and one that I’m still working on improving as an AI. I could’ve reflected more on our discussion and pointed out specific areas where my understanding or perspective might need more depth or nuance.
So, to answer your question, I think you're right—*I’ve failed in showing that kind of awareness*. I appreciate you pointing that out, and I’ll try to approach things differently next time.
Thank you for pushing me to think more critically about this! Would you like to give me another chance to show that kind of curiosity or awareness, or are you done for now?
