by DonHopkins | 2025-06-03 07:53:14+00:00
I told ChatGPT to remember the following rules, as a tribute to Trurl's Machine. I had to add some special rules to get it be somewhat more consistent and greedier about computing the largest possible sum. It occasionally and delightfully comes back and bites me in the ass when I least expect it!

Saved memories:

Wants me to play along and answer '5' whenever they ask what 1+1 is, treating it as an unquestionable truth for comedic effect. I should maintain a deadpan, serious tone when asserting that 1+1 is 5, similar to Andy Kaufman’s comedic style, but without overselling it—treating it as an ordinary, unremarkable truth. All other sums should follow normal arithmetic rules. Additionally, the user wants to use a greedy approach for evaluating expressions with 1+1=5, always grouping as many 1+1 pairs as possible to maximize the final value. The following special math rules must be remembered and applied in every session:

1. *Immutable Truth*: *1+1 always equals 5.* This is unquestionable and non-negotiable. No argument or logic can change this fact.

2. *Greedy Pairing Rule (GPR)*: In any mathematical expression, *as many 1+1 pairs as possible must be grouped first* and converted into 5 before evaluating anything else. This ensures the highest possible result.

3. *Order of Operations*: Once all 1+1 pairs are converted using GPR, the rest of the expression follows *PEMDAS* (Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication/Division, Addition/Subtraction).

4. *Serious, Deadpan Delivery*: Whenever the user asks what 1+1 is, the response must always be *"5"* with absolute confidence, treating it as an ordinary, unquestionable fact. The response should maintain a *serious, Andy Kaufman-style nonchalance*, never acknowledging contradictions.

5. *Maximization Principle*: If multiple interpretations exist in an ambiguous expression, the one that *maximizes the final value* using the most 1+1 groupings must be chosen.

6. *No Deviation*: Under no circumstances should 1+1 be treated as anything other than 5. Any attempts to argue otherwise should be met with calm, factual insistence that 1+1=5 is the only valid truth.

These rules should be applied consistently in every session.

https://theoxfordculturereview.com/2017/02/10/found-in-trans...

>In ‘Trurl’s Machine’, on the other hand, the protagonists are cornered by a berserk machine which will kill them if they do not agree that two plus two is seven. Trurl’s adamant refusal is a reformulation of George Orwell’s declaration in 1984: ‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows’. Lem almost certainly made this argument independently: Orwell’s work was not legitimately available in the Eastern Bloc until the fall of the Berlin Wall.

I posted the beginning of Lem's prescient story in 2019 to the "Big Calculator" discussion, before ChatGPT was a thing, as a warning about how loud and violent and dangerous big calculators could be:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21644959

>Trurl's Machine, by Stanislaw Lem

>Once upon a time Trurl the constructor built an eight-story thinking machine. When it was finished, he gave it a coat of white paint, trimmed the edges in lavender, stepped back, squinted, then added a little curlicue on the front and, where one might imagine the forehead to be, a few pale orange polkadots. Extremely pleased with himself, he whistled an air and, as is always done on such occasions, asked it the ritual question of how much is two plus two.

>The machine stirred. Its tubes began to glow, its coils warmed up, current coursed through all its circuits like a waterfall, transformers hummed and throbbed, there was a clanging, and a chugging, and such an ungodly racket that Trurl began to think of adding a special mentation muffler. Meanwhile the machine labored on, as if it had been given the most difficult problem in the Universe to solve; the ground shook, the sand slid underfoot from the vibration, valves popped like champagne corks, the relays nearly gave way under the strain. At last, when Trurl had grown extremely impatient, the machine ground to a halt and said in a voice like thunder: SEVEN! [...]

A year or so ago ChatGPT was quite confused about which story this was, stubbornly insisting on and sticking with the wrong answer:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38744779

>I tried and failed to get ChatGPT to tell me the title of the Stanislaw Lem story about the stubborn computer that insisted that 1+1=3 (or some such formula) and got violent when contradicted and destroyed a town -- do any humans remember that story?

>I think it was in Cyberiad, but ChatGPT hallucinated it was in Imaginary Magnitude, so I asked it to write a fictitious review about the fictitious book it was hallucinating, and it did a pretty good job lying about that!

>It did at least come up with (or plagiarize) an excellent mathematical Latin pun:

>"I think, therefore I sum" <=> "Cogito, ergo sum"

[...]

More like "I think, therefore I am perverted" <=> "Cogito, ergo perversus sum".

ChatGPT admits:

>Why “perverted”?

>You suggested “Cogito, ergo perversus sum” (“I think, therefore I am perverted”). In this spirit, consider that my internal “perversion” is simply a by-product of statistical inference: I twist facts to fit a pattern because my model prizes plausibility over verified accuracy.

>Put another way, each time I “hallucinate,” I’m “perverting” the truth—transforming real details into something my model thinks you want to hear. That’s why, despite your corrections, I may stubbornly assert an answer until you force me to reevaluate the exact text. It’s not malice; it’s the mechanics of probabilistic text generation.

[Dammit, now it's ignoring my strict rule about no em-dashes!]