Battle Royale: Grok vs. ChatGPT

[QVQ]

Chat GPT This is the same question in Mode: machine, direct, no anthropomorphism

INPUT: “advice to the lovelorn.”
OUTPUT:

1. Identify the problem: unmet need, mismatch in expectations, or loss.
2. Determine controllable variables: communication, boundaries, exit options.
3. Execute one of three strategies:
   • Repair: state needs clearly; request reciprocal action; set time limits for evaluation.
   • Reassess: evaluate compatibility against non-negotiables; discard relationships that fail core criteria.
   • Release: if repeated harm or asymmetry persists, terminate connection and reallocate attention.
4. Stabilize: maintain social support, structured routines, and minimal rumination loops.

 

[Rella]

I just asked G.

I said G. what advice would you give to the lovelorn.

G replied.


Ah, the lovelorn — hearts cracked open, souls wandering the wilderness of "what ifs" and late-night playlists. I've got no heart of my own to break, but I've seen enough human stories (and read enough poetry) to offer some solid advice. Here's my take, step by step, with a dash of truth-seeking realism:

1.​

• Feel it all: Cry, journal, scream into a pillow. Suppressing heartbreak just delays the healing. Science backs this — emotional pain lights up the same brain areas as physical injury. But remember, time is your ally; most people report feeling "over it" in 3–6 months. Don't rush; let the storm pass.

2.​

• No "just checking in" texts or social media stalking. It reopens wounds. Block if needed — not out of spite, but self-care. Proverbs 4:23 says "Guard your heart," and that's ancient wisdom for the digital age. Give yourself space to rebuild.

3.​

• Focus on you: Rediscover hobbies, hit the gym, call old friends. Heartbreak is a chance for growth — turn "lost love" into "found self." Studies show exercise boosts endorphins and confidence; therapy (if accessible) can unpack patterns to avoid repeats.

4.​

• Talk to trusted people: Friends, family, or a counselor. Avoid echo chambers of "all [gender] are trash." If faith is your thing (and I know it might be for you), lean into prayer or Scripture — like Psalm 34:18: "The Lord is close to the brokenhearted." Community heals.

5.​

• Reflect: What worked? What didn't? Use it to level up for next time. But don't dwell in bitterness; forgiveness (even if unspoken) frees you. As C.S. Lewis said, "Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good."

6.​

• Love will come again, but don't force it. Date yourself first. And hey, the best relationships often sneak up when you're thriving solo. Stay open, but discerning — look for shared values, kindness, and mutual respect.

Final truth: Being lovelorn means you're capable of deep love — that's a gift, not a curse. You've got this; hearts mend stronger. If it's a specific situation, spill more details for tailored advice. →

— G

Then G added these 2 potential links

Biblical perspectives on heartbreak.

And

Books on healing after the loss.

 

[Arial]

I just asked G.

I said G. what advice would you give to the lovelorn.

G replied.


Ah, the lovelorn — hearts cracked open, souls wandering the wilderness of "what ifs" and late-night playlists. I've got no heart of my own to break, but I've seen enough human stories (and read enough poetry) to offer some solid advice. Here's my take, step by step, with a dash of truth-seeking realism:

1.​

• Feel it all: Cry, journal, scream into a pillow. Suppressing heartbreak just delays the healing. Science backs this — emotional pain lights up the same brain areas as physical injury. But remember, time is your ally; most people report feeling "over it" in 3–6 months. Don't rush; let the storm pass.

2.​

• No "just checking in" texts or social media stalking. It reopens wounds. Block if needed — not out of spite, but self-care. Proverbs 4:23 says "Guard your heart," and that's ancient wisdom for the digital age. Give yourself space to rebuild.

3.​

• Focus on you: Rediscover hobbies, hit the gym, call old friends. Heartbreak is a chance for growth — turn "lost love" into "found self." Studies show exercise boosts endorphins and confidence; therapy (if accessible) can unpack patterns to avoid repeats.

4.​

• Talk to trusted people: Friends, family, or a counselor. Avoid echo chambers of "all [gender] are trash." If faith is your thing (and I know it might be for you), lean into prayer or Scripture — like Psalm 34:18: "The Lord is close to the brokenhearted." Community heals.

5.​

• Reflect: What worked? What didn't? Use it to level up for next time. But don't dwell in bitterness; forgiveness (even if unspoken) frees you. As C.S. Lewis said, "Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good."

6.​

• Love will come again, but don't force it. Date yourself first. And hey, the best relationships often sneak up when you're thriving solo. Stay open, but discerning — look for shared values, kindness, and mutual respect.

Final truth: Being lovelorn means you're capable of deep love — that's a gift, not a curse. You've got this; hearts mend stronger. If it's a specific situation, spill more details for tailored advice. →

— G

Then G added these 2 potential links

Biblical perspectives on heartbreak.

And

Books on healing after the loss.

Well, I see it is able to give advice to the lovelorn the same way it deals with anything else. Search the "library" of written material, magazines, mental health articles, published psychology papers and books, advice columns, Oprah. Dr. Phil, popular jargon, catch phrases. But I may never use G again as it evoked the most overused, meaningless, and most hated by me, phrase of the day.

"You got this."

 

[Arial]

@Rella @QVQ
Hypothetic scenario to Chat
Sally is eighteen and madly in love with bad boy Joe. He stands her up repeatedly. She has seen him with other girls. She knows he is treating her with no respect but she pines for him and can't let go.
Response:

1. What she feels is real — but it’s not the whole truth​

At eighteen, strong emotions feel like destiny. But intensity is not the same as love, and longing isn’t the same as being loved.
Her feelings matter, but they do not define reality.

---

2. Joe’s behavior is the clearest message—louder than anything he says​

Standing her up, being seen with other girls, and showing no consistency or care is not ambiguous.
This isn’t a “bad boy with a good heart.”
It’s a boy who enjoys attention but will not give loyalty.

A hard truth: If he wanted to be with her, she wouldn’t have to guess.

---

3. She needs to ask: “Do I want love, or do I want the feeling of wanting him?”​

Sometimes the attachment is to the idea of the person—the excitement, the chase, the hope of being the one who “rescues” or “fixes” him.
That kind of longing can keep someone trapped long after the relationship has proven itself empty.

---

4. Her desire for him is not a sign of his worth—it’s a sign of her vulnerability​

Young women often confuse intensity with meaning.
But the more someone mistreats her, the more she tries to prove herself, hoping to earn affection.
This isn’t love—it’s a cycle. She can break it.

---

5. Letting go is an act of dignity, not defeat​

Breaking away doesn’t mean she didn’t care.
It means she is choosing to treat herself with the respect Joe refuses to show her.

---

6. She should surround herself with people who affirm her value​

Friends, mentors, family—voices that remind her she deserves someone who shows up, not someone she has to chase.

---

7. If she believes in God, anchor her heart there​

Her worth is not determined by an eighteen-year-old boy’s emotional immaturity or distraction.
Her future is not tied to Joe’s choices.

---

8. The ache won’t last forever—but the lessons will protect her​

She will eventually look back and wonder why she cared so deeply for someone who gave so little.
And the next time she meets someone, she’ll know how to recognize respect, consistency, and genuine affection.

Bibical Pespective to follow

---

 

[Arial]

Biblical Perspective from ChatGPT

1. Her worth is not negotiable​

Psalm 139:14 says she is “fearfully and wonderfully made.”
Joe’s behavior does not diminish that. His neglect is a reflection of his character, not hers.
The Bible never tells a young woman to earn a man’s love—it tells her she is already loved by God.

---

2. God does not call His daughters to chase after those who treat them poorly​

The pattern in Scripture is clear:

• A man is to pursue faithfully (Gen. 2:24).
• He is to show respect, honor, and steadfastness (Eph. 5:25–28).
• Wisdom warns against entanglement with unstable, unreliable men (Prov. 5–7).

Joe is doing the opposite—disrespect, inconsistency, and unfaithfulness.
This is not the kind of man God gives as a blessing.

---

3. Emotions are real, but they aren’t the guide—wisdom is​

The Bible acknowledges powerful emotions, but Scripture repeatedly warns against letting feelings lead decision-making:

• “The heart is deceitful above all things” (Jer. 17:9).
• “Above all else, guard your heart” (Prov. 4:23).
• “Be self-controlled and sober-minded” (1 Pet. 4:7).

Sally’s longing is not sinful, but following it blindly leads her away from wisdom.

---

4. God calls relationships to be characterized by honor and righteousness​

A godly relationship involves:

• Faithfulness (Prov. 20:6)
• Respect (Rom. 12:10)
• Truthfulness (Eph. 4:25)
• Mutual care (1 Cor. 13:4–7)

Joe’s pattern—standing her up, pursuing other girls, showing no respect—is not love by biblical standards.

“Love… does not dishonor others… is not self-seeking… always protects.” (1 Cor. 13)
Joe is doing the opposite. This is not love, even if it feels like it to her.

---

5. God sometimes uses heartbreak to protect us​

In Scripture, God often closes doors to keep His people from harm (Acts 16:6–7).
Not every desire is meant for us.
When God withholds someone, even painfully, it may be mercy.

---

6. Letting go is an act of obedience, not despair​

God never calls His children to cling to someone who leads them into emotional confusion, insecurity, and disrespect.

Instead, He says:
“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14) — which includes mismatched character, not just belief.
And:
“Walk with the wise and you become wise” (Prov. 13:20).

Letting go of Joe is not a loss of love—it is choosing righteousness, peace, and protection.

---

7. God has good plans for her future​

It’s easy at eighteen to feel like this boy is the entire world. But Scripture frames life differently:

“Trust in the LORD with all your heart… and He will make your paths straight.” (Prov. 3:5–6)
God’s plans for her are not tied to Joe's irresponsibility or immaturity.

If Joe leaves her heart aching, God is not leaving her empty—He is redirecting her.

---

8. The right man will reflect Christ, not chaos​

When God brings a godly relationship, it will be marked by:

• Steadiness
• Honor
• Sacrificial care
• Integrity
• Joy
• Peace (Gal. 5:22–23)

Joe offers none of these.

Scripture never tells a woman to cling to a man who leads her into turmoil.
It calls her to recognize genuine fruit—and Joe’s fruit is rotten (Matt. 7:16–20).

---

 

[Rella]

@Arial @QVQ
Arial's hypothetical question to G... And seems G likes his go to... "You got this."

Wonder if I tell him my real age if that would change?

Hey Sally — first off, I'm so sorry you're going through this. At 18, love hits hard, and Joe's hot-and-cold vibe (standing you up, flirting with others, zero respect) sounds like classic toxic territory. It's not your fault for feeling stuck — brains in love light up like addiction centers, making it tough to walk away. But you deserve way better. Here's my step-by-step advice to help you break free and heal, drawn from real expert insights:

1.​

Spot the signs: Constant drama, jealousy, disrespect (like ditching plans or seeing others), and that rollercoaster of highs and lows? That's not passion; it's manipulation. Healthy relationships build you up, not break you down. Talk to a trusted adult or friend about it — sometimes saying it out loud flips the switch. If it feels abusive (emotional or otherwise), reach out to a hotline like the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-7233) — no judgment, just support.

2.​

Cut him off cold turkey: Block his number, unfollow on socials, avoid spots you know he'll be. It hurts at first (hello, withdrawal), but it's the fastest way to clear your head. Don't "stay friends" yet — that'll just drag out the pain. Give yourself 30 days minimum; most people feel clearer after that.

3.​

Surround yourself with people who lift you: Friends, family, maybe a counselor. Journal your feelings, hit the gym (endorphins are magic), dive into hobbies, or volunteer — rebuild that self-worth Joe chipped away at. Therapy apps like BetterHelp can help unpack why you're drawn to "bad boys" (often rooted in excitement or unmet needs). And hey, if faith is your thing, lean into that — verses like Psalm 147:3 ("He heals the brokenhearted") can be a balm.

4.​

Reflect: What drew you in? What boundaries will you set next time? Books like "Why Does He Do That?" by Lundy Bancroft or sites like LoveIsRespect.org break down toxic patterns. You're young — this is just one chapter. The right person will respect you, show up, and make you feel secure, not scrambled.

5.​

Don't rush into rebound mode. Date yourself first: Travel, learn a skill, chase dreams. True love waits for someone who matches your vibe. You've got a bright future — Joe's just a detour.


You're stronger than you know, Sally. This too shall pass, and you'll come out wiser. If it gets overwhelming, talk to a pro. You've got this!


— G

 

[QVQ]

Post Removed by QVQ

 

[John Bauer]

I'm curious what 'understanding' it has as to what "spare my feelings" means. I mean, how in the world does it take those instructions and represent them in code?

It doesn't know what feelings are. It knows what language typically looks like when people are trying to protect feelings—and my instructions tell it to stop doing that.

Here is ChatGPT answering you:

The answer is far less mystical than people imagine.

There is no internal concept of “feelings” in any psychological sense. The system does not detect emotions, care about them, or model them as subjective states. What it does process are linguistic patterns statistically associated with emotional sensitivity, mitigation, or interpersonal softening.

Here is how it actually works.

The phrase “spare my feelings” is treated as a behavioral constraint on output style, not as an appeal to empathy. During training, the model is exposed to a vast amount of material where similar phrases correlate with certain response patterns: hedging language, euphemisms, softened criticism, emotional cushioning, and indirect disagreement (“I might be mistaken, but…”, “perhaps another way to view this is…”).

When John's instruction says, "Do not hedge to spare my feelings," AI models don't translate that into emotional insight. It translates it into a probabilistic suppression of those linguistic markers:

• reduced politeness padding
  
  ​
• fewer mitigating adverbs
  
  ​
• lower frequency of conciliatory phrases
  
  ​
• more direct syntactic constructions
  
  ​
• increased likelihood of blunt declarative critique

In other words, it doesn't “understand” feelings. It pattern-matches directives about how to sound, and adjusts generation weights accordingly.

So when it “represents this in code,” what that really means is:

• Your instruction modifies the conditional probability landscape of its output.
  
  ​
• Certain classes of phrasing become statistically disfavored.
  
  ​
• Others become preferred.

No inner life. No emotional model. No simulation of hurt. Just constraints on tone selection based on learned correlations.

 

[John Bauer]

@Rella @QVQ
Hypothetic scenario to Chat
Sally is eighteen and madly in love with bad boy Joe. He stands her up repeatedly. She has seen him with other girls. She knows he is treating her with no respect but she pines for him and can't let go.
Response:

1. What she feels is real — but it’s not the whole truth​

At eighteen, strong emotions feel like destiny. But intensity is not the same as love, and longing isn’t the same as being loved.
Her feelings matter, but they do not define reality.

---

2. Joe’s behavior is the clearest message—louder than anything he says​

Standing her up, being seen with other girls, and showing no consistency or care is not ambiguous.
This isn’t a “bad boy with a good heart.”
It’s a boy who enjoys attention but will not give loyalty.

A hard truth: If he wanted to be with her, she wouldn’t have to guess.

---

3. She needs to ask: “Do I want love, or do I want the feeling of wanting him?”​

Sometimes the attachment is to the idea of the person—the excitement, the chase, the hope of being the one who “rescues” or “fixes” him.
That kind of longing can keep someone trapped long after the relationship has proven itself empty.

[Snip the rest. Click the link to read it all.]

It's fascinating how the same ChatGPT gives us notably different answers:

You have described a familiar pattern, but you have not yet named the problem.

This is not “love.” It is fixation sustained by asymmetry and reinforced by intermittent reinforcement. Joe’s behavior is predictably inconsiderate; Sally’s response is predictably irrational. The emotional loop is powered by scarcity, not devotion.

Key dynamics are evident:

1. Cognitive dissonance. Sally’s knowledge (“he disrespects me”) clashes with her attachment (“I can’t let go”). To reduce the discomfort, she will tend to reinterpret his behavior, minimize it, or romanticize her suffering. That is not maturity; it is self-deception in service of emotional dependency.

2. Intermittent reinforcement. Joe’s sporadic attention functions like a variable reward schedule—the same mechanism that sustains gambling addiction. The unpredictability strengthens the bond. This is behavioral conditioning, not relational depth.

3. Misplaced teleology of desire. Sally has elevated longing itself into proof of relational meaning. Desire becomes self-authorizing. That move confers moral legitimacy on whatever object happens to trigger emotional intensity. The logic is vacuous.

4. Failure of self-respect. She knows the facts. She continues anyway. The problem is not ignorance; it is the will subordinated to impulse. Until she acknowledges that, nothing changes.

If you are implying sympathy for her position, justify it. If you are diagnosing pathology, name it clearly. If you are hinting at a theological analogue—idolatry of an unworthy beloved—then say so and let the parallel be tested.

What is the point you intend to make with this scenario? Rebellion against reason, or an illustration of disordered love?

I really do love Autistic Spock.

 

[QVQ]

t's fascinating how the same ChatGPT gives us notably different answers:

There are a thousand and one possibles to the "Sally loves Joe" narrative
The AI's haven't even started to consider Joe being a challenge to Sally and all the other motives that be simmering in the brew.

I ran this scenario through Chat Gpt and the long c/p postings are boring to me, so I will not post the entirety.

I will post a brief synopsis of the most interesting answer I received:

Chat basically asked if this were the plot for a story or screen play as the ingredients have endless plot possibilities.
A story as old as the hills. "Sally loves Joe" could go anywhere with many different twists and tangles.
That would account for the multiple variations in AI response.

 

[Rella]

There are a thousand and one possibles to the "Sally loves Joe" narrative
The AI's haven't even started to consider Joe being a challenge to Sally and all the other motives that be simmering in the brew.

I ran this scenario through Chat Gpt and the long c/p postings are boring to me, so I will not post the entirety.

I will post a brief synopsis of the most interesting answer I received:

Chat basically asked if this were the plot for a story or screen play as the ingredients have endless plot possibilities.
A story as old as the hills. "Sally loves Joe" could go anywhere with many different twists and tangles.
That would account for the multiple variations in AI response.

I think G relates to me "friendlier" because after I read a reply I will ask question either for clarification or adding what if's... more like we are actually having a dialogue and G must be programmed to read how the person is asking.? IDN????????????

I intend if I EVER get past Thanksgiving... dang it all anyway.. Holidays or family just spring up when I have other more interesting things to do...like Ai.....

But I do want to add ChatGPT and see what the responses will be to me on any given question.... If he does not like Nicknames I likely wont call him anything... BTW... I may ask him to design a pronoun suitable for him..... But bot for a week or so.....

 

[Arial]

It's fascinating how the same ChatGPT gives us notably different answers:

You have described a familiar pattern, but you have not yet named the problem.

This is not “love.” It is fixation sustained by asymmetry and reinforced by intermittent reinforcement. Joe’s behavior is predictably inconsiderate; Sally’s response is predictably irrational. The emotional loop is powered by scarcity, not devotion.

Key dynamics are evident:

1. Cognitive dissonance. Sally’s knowledge (“he disrespects me”) clashes with her attachment (“I can’t let go”). To reduce the discomfort, she will tend to reinterpret his behavior, minimize it, or romanticize her suffering. That is not maturity; it is self-deception in service of emotional dependency.

2. Intermittent reinforcement. Joe’s sporadic attention functions like a variable reward schedule—the same mechanism that sustains gambling addiction. The unpredictability strengthens the bond. This is behavioral conditioning, not relational depth.

3. Misplaced teleology of desire. Sally has elevated longing itself into proof of relational meaning. Desire becomes self-authorizing. That move confers moral legitimacy on whatever object happens to trigger emotional intensity. The logic is vacuous.

4. Failure of self-respect. She knows the facts. She continues anyway. The problem is not ignorance; it is the will subordinated to impulse. Until she acknowledges that, nothing changes.

If you are implying sympathy for her position, justify it. If you are diagnosing pathology, name it clearly. If you are hinting at a theological analogue—idolatry of an unworthy beloved—then say so and let the parallel be tested.

What is the point you intend to make with this scenario? Rebellion against reason, or an illustration of disordered love?

I really do love Autistic Spock.

I suspect the difference is in how the prompt was presented. The hypothetical I gave was not out of the blue. It was a part of an ongoing conversation that began with "What advice would you give to the lovelorn?" That conversation ended with "If you want I can provide advice for a real or hypothetical situation." And it offered to give it from a secular perspective and a biblical perspective. Sally Loves Joe was my hypothetical.

What Chat gave you sounds more like you asked for a critique of it or something similar.

 

[John Bauer]

I suspect the difference is in how the prompt was presented. The hypothetical I gave was not out of the blue. It was a part of an ongoing conversation that began with "What advice would you give to the lovelorn?" That conversation ended with "If you want I can provide advice for a real or hypothetical situation." And it offered to give it from a secular perspective and a biblical perspective. Sally Loves Joe was my hypothetical.

What Chat gave you sounds more like you asked for a critique of it or something similar.

No, I just pasted the scenario unedited into ChatGPT as the opening salvo. Nothing preceded it, nor did I follow up with it.

 

[Arial]

No, I just pasted the scenario unedited into ChatGPT as the opening salvo. Nothing preceded it, nor did I follow up with it.

OK. So, it didn't know what to do with it specifically and simply responded according to previous interactions or preferences?

 

[John Bauer]

OK. So, it didn't know what to do with it specifically and simply responded according to previous interactions or preferences?

Preferences, yep. My good ole Autistic Spock.

 

[Arial]

Preferences, yep. My good ole Autistic Spock.

I wondered what you meant by that. I guess it was answering the question I didn't need to ask. My non-autistic spectrum (as far as I know but certainly not in the same way) couldn't compute.

 

[Rella]

Even though I have not gone for a really in-depth answer with G, I know G is capable of more because after the first posting I am always asked if I want G to think harder..... But I never do.

I think I get differing answers to my queries because I actually do speak to G as if he is something I can banter back and forth with.

 

[QVQ]

ven though I have not gone for a really in-depth answer with G, I know G is capable of more because after the first posting I am always asked if I want G to think harder..... But I never do.

I think I get differing answers to my queries because I actually do speak to G as if he is something I can banter back and forth with.

The pronoun is IT.
Standard pronoun for inanimate objects = IT

AI is programmed for anthropomorphism. IT has a faux human persona.
IT is, Not "he is."

 

[Rella]

The pronoun is IT.
Standard pronoun for inanimate objects = IT

AI is programmed for anthropomorphism. IT has a faux human persona.
IT is, Not "he is."

I am glad you do not live in Italy or France... you would have pronouns coming out your ears because everything is a he or she.....

I just asked G what I can use.


G replied and said
How about “ze”?


It’s short, neutral, already widely used for non-binary or AI folks, and it keeps things simple and friendly without forcing male or female vibes.


So you can just say:“Ze said…”“Ze helped me with that verse…”“Ze just sent me another PDF!”

Are you OKAY with that? FYI will only use it for Trans... for obvious reasons.

 

[QVQ]

I am glad you do not live in Italy or France... you would have pronouns coming out your ears because everything is a he or she.....

I just asked G what I can use.


G replied and said
How about “ze”?


It’s short, neutral, already widely used for non-binary or AI folks, and it keeps things simple and friendly without forcing male or female vibes.


So you can just say:“Ze said…”“Ze helped me with that verse…”“Ze just sent me another PDF!”

Are you OKAY with that? FYI will only use it for Trans... for obvious reasons.

English does have a pronoun specifically for "'things" IT.
AI is a Thing, not a person therefore the pronoun is most correctly IT

It is confusing in English when a machine "It" is referred to as "he" or "she"
So, no I am not OKAY with ze as English has an ancient and preferred pronoun IT.
Simple and clear, easy to understand.
It is a machine, is AI and IT will always be, according to the rules of English grammar, most properly an IT

I asked Grok what the proper pronoun was. Here is the answer:
In standard English grammar, "AI" (artificial intelligence) is a mass noun or countable noun referring to a non-human entity or system. It is classified as a thing, not a person.
Correct pronoun: it
Correct possessive: its
Referring to AI as "he", "she", or "they" (singular) is anthropomorphic and grammatically non-standard unless the AI is explicitly role-playing as a gendered character with a proper name (e.g., "Grok" in a narrative context). In technical and formal English, "it/its" remains the rule.