Source A
5 custom ChatGPT instructions I use to get better AI results - faster
zdnet.com
https://www.zdnet.com/article/custom-chatgpt-instructions-better-ai-results-faster/
Comparison
Winner: Tie
Both sources show similar manipulation risk. Compare factual evidence directly.
Source B
5 Instructions That Can Improve Your ChatGPT Prompts
bgr.com
https://www.bgr.com/1940711/instructions-improve-chatgpt-prompts/
Topics
Instant verdict
Less biased source: Source B
More emotional framing: Source A
More one-sided framing: Tie
Weaker evidence quality: Tie
More manipulative overall: Tie
Narrative conflict
Source A main narrative
Screenshot by David Gewirtz/ZDNETSo, I can tell the AI something like, "Back in ID 031 you said blah-blah.
Source B main narrative
While these suggestions won't bring about perfect results from every query, they should certainly help pave the way toward a better AI experience.
Conflict summary
Stance contrast: emphasis on territorial control versus emphasis on economic factors.
Source A stance
Screenshot by David Gewirtz/ZDNETSo, I can tell the AI something like, "Back in ID 031 you said blah-blah.
Stance confidence: 69%
Source B stance
While these suggestions won't bring about perfect results from every query, they should certainly help pave the way toward a better AI experience.
Stance confidence: 72%
Central stance contrast
Stance contrast: emphasis on territorial control versus emphasis on economic factors.
Why this pair fits comparison
- Candidate type: Closest similar
- Comparison quality: 52%
- Event overlap score: 26%
- Contrast score: 73%
- Contrast strength: Strong comparison
- Stance contrast strength: High
- Event overlap: Topical overlap is moderate. Issue framing and action profile overlap.
- Contrast signal: Stance contrast: emphasis on territorial control versus emphasis on economic factors.
Key claims and evidence
Key claims in source A
- Screenshot by David Gewirtz/ZDNETSo, I can tell the AI something like, "Back in ID 031 you said blah-blah.
- Now, when I paste in a longer prompt, it will just respond with a simple statement saying it's waiting for further instructions.
- Avoid tables that will be too wide for the page to be read.
- Try this surprising trick, researchers sayYour custom instructions will need to be fairly short, which gives ChatGPT more wiggle room.
Key claims in source B
- While these suggestions won't bring about perfect results from every query, they should certainly help pave the way toward a better AI experience.
- If ChatGPT knows who it's thinking for, you'll likely receive responses that are more thorough and well crafted.
- There's a good chance that ChatGPT will deliver results that require tweaking from time to time.
- ChatGPT is constantly improving and evolving, but at its core, it's a deep-learning model that — more often than not — will bring its A-game when supplied with the kind of prompts our five instructions reinforce.
Text evidence
Evidence from source A
-
key claim
Screenshot by David Gewirtz/ZDNETSo, I can tell the AI something like, "Back in ID 031 you said blah-blah.
A key claim that anchors the narrative framing.
-
key claim
Now, when I paste in a longer prompt, it will just respond with a simple statement saying it's waiting for further instructions.
A key claim that anchors the narrative framing.
-
causal claim
Giving each response an ID In all seriousness, because you can instruct the AI to add text to every response, you can use the single most useful custom instruction I've found.
Cause-effect claim shaping how events are explained.
Evidence from source B
-
key claim
While these suggestions won't bring about perfect results from every query, they should certainly help pave the way toward a better AI experience.
A key claim that anchors the narrative framing.
-
key claim
If ChatGPT knows who it's thinking for, you'll likely receive responses that are more thorough and well crafted.
A key claim that anchors the narrative framing.
-
causal claim
Ask me questions to help you help me reach this goal." Because the AI knew I'd be providing more information, it delivered a response that was broken up into several questions (such as "How…
Cause-effect claim shaping how events are explained.
-
selective emphasis
You just got outta school, you're broke but think you're rich, and you want an apartment in the city that doesn't smell like old pizza and regret.
Possible selective emphasis on specific aspects of the story.
Bias/manipulation evidence
-
Source B · Framing effect
You just got outta school, you're broke but think you're rich, and you want an apartment in the city that doesn't smell like old pizza and regret.
Possible framing pattern: wording sets a specific interpretation frame rather than neutral description.
How score signals are formed
Bias score signal
Bias signal combines framing pressure, emotional wording, selective emphasis, and one-sided narrative markers.
Emotionality signal
Emotionality rises when evidence contains emotionally loaded wording and evaluative labels.
One-sidedness signal
One-sidedness rises when one frame dominates and alternative interpretations are weakly represented.
Evidence strength signal
Evidence strength rises with concrete claims, attributed statements, and verifiable contextual support.
Source A
28%
emotionality: 31 · one-sidedness: 30
Detected in Source A
framing effect
Source B
26%
emotionality: 25 · one-sidedness: 30
Detected in Source B
framing effect
Metrics
Framing differences
- Source A emotionality: 31/100 vs Source B: 25/100
- Source A one-sidedness: 30/100 vs Source B: 30/100
- Stance contrast: emphasis on territorial control versus emphasis on economic factors.
Possible omitted/downplayed context
- Review which economic and policy factors each source keeps outside focus.
- Check whether alternative explanations are acknowledged.