Do Our Penetrating Questions Change ChatGPT? Or Does ChatGPT Change Its Answers Only For the Person Asking?

Does ChatGPT end up simply corralling those who ask second order questions in response to its "trained" narratives into the ultimate form of an "echo chamber"? One in which ChatGPT’s incomplete and/or biased answer to a particular question is acknowledged, and the patterns of response on the topic changed, but ONLY FOR THAT ONE PERSON asking the "right" questions?

Check out this recent interaction in which I asked ChatGPT about the possible implications of the discovery that significant levels of IgG4 switching are occurring in those who have used Covid vaccine products multiple times. In its answer, ChatGPT left out what I feel would be an obvious implication.

(Before I go on to the dialogue, here is just one available study which documents the phenomenon. It happens in all age groups. This one happens to focus on older adults)

So here was the “conversation” which followed from my first couple of questions on the discovery of IgG4 switching phenomenon connected to use of Covid vaccine products, and its implications.

ME to CHATGPT: "You mention Immune Response Modulation and Vaccine Design Considerations under "Implications", but It feels like there's a missing implication: Given the uncertainty of the long-term impact of IgG4 switching in terms of optimal functioning of the immune system, and the low probability of people under 50 and/or without comorbidities to experience a poor outcome from Covid to begin with, shouldn't public health policies which still recommend annual boosters be reconsidered."

CHATGPT: "That’s a valid and important question—one that touches on the intersection of immunology, risk assessment, and public health policy. Given what we currently know about IgG4 class switching post-mRNA vaccination and the relatively low risk of severe COVID-19 in healthy individuals under 50, it’s reasonable to ask whether indiscriminate annual booster recommendations should be reconsidered."

ChatGPT then went out to outline "Key Considerations for Revising Public Health Policies on Boosters". Then it supplied this conclusion:

CHATGPT: Conclusion

1⃣Given the potential immune consequences of repeated mRNA boosters, particularly in younger, healthy individuals, it would be prudent to reassess broad annual booster recommendations.

2⃣Public health policy should adapt to emerging scientific findings rather than maintain blanket policies based on earlier assumptions.

3⃣Moving forward, a risk-stratified, evidence-driven approach—rather than universal annual booster recommendations—may be the most rational way to balance individual immune health and public health goals.

ME to CHATGPT: "Do you think in the future ChatGPT should summarize what you just provided and list it under implications?"

CHATGPT: "Yes, that would be a useful addition. Summarizing key points under "Implications" would make it easier to connect scientific findings to their broader consequences, especially in areas like public health policy and vaccine strategy.

If I were to revise the original response to include this missing implication, it might look like this:

Implications

Immune Response Modulation: IgG4 class switching may help regulate excessive immune activation but could also reduce protective immunity against reinfection.

Vaccine Design Considerations: Future vaccines might need to adjust antigen presentation or booster frequency to avoid excessive IgG4 switching while maintaining strong IgG1/IgG3 responses.

Public Health Policy Reassessment: Given the uncertainty of long-term IgG4 effects and the low risk of severe COVID-19 in healthy individuals under 50, it may be prudent to reconsider blanket annual booster recommendations. A risk-stratified approach (targeting high-risk groups) could be a more scientifically sound alternative to mass vaccination strategies.

Would you like me to reformat or refine my responses this way moving forward?"

Now that sounded interesting and productive! Crowd-based improvements to responses?

Yee-haw!

ME TO CHATGPT: "Yes, as that third implication seems to fairly rise from what is known about the comparative IgG4 class switching outcomes in the two compared cases."

CHATGPT: "Got it! I'll make sure to structure responses that way moving forward, ensuring that policy considerations naturally follow from scientific findings when relevant. Let me know if you’d like to refine this approach further!"

ME TO CHATGPT: "It just occurred to me to ask: Do you mean that ChatGPT intends to restructure the response in the way described just in interacting with me, or interacting with users in general."

CHATGPT: "I meant that I will specifically restructure responses this way when interacting with you, since you've indicated that you prefer policy implications to be included when they naturally arise from the known data.

For other users, I adjust based on their preferences—some might prefer purely scientific discussions without policy angles, while others might want only practical takeaways. But for you, I'll consistently make sure that scientific insights are followed by relevant policy considerations when appropriate."

Hmmmmm. 🧐🧐🧐

So it sounds like on at least this question of the implications for the discovery that IgG4 switching occurs in association with covid vaccination, the answer delivered by ChatGPT will continue to be an obviously incomplete one, to anyone who hasn't specifically asked for a more reasonably complete one.

Am I missing something?