💡 How to use these prompts:
Replace everything in [BRACKETS] with your specific details before sending.
Click Copy to copy any prompt to your clipboard instantly.
Here is what my AI deployment does and how we measure it.<br/><br/>Answer two questions separately and explicitly:<br/>1. What does this system actually optimise? Not what we want it to do - what does the measurement reward?<br/>2. What is the outcome we actually care about?<br/><br/>Then state plainly where those two come apart, and what behaviour would score well on 1 while being useless or harmful for 2.<br/><br/>Do not reassure me that they are aligned unless you can show it.<br/><br/>DEPLOYMENT:<br/>[paste]
My AI produces more of X since deployment. I want to know whether that is real or artefact.<br/><br/>Tell me what downstream thing should ALSO have increased if the rise in X were genuine.<br/><br/>Be specific and name something independently measurable that nobody would bother to game.<br/><br/>Then tell me how to check it, and what it means if X rose and the downstream thing did not.<br/><br/>WHAT X IS:<br/>[paste]
Map every point in this workflow where a number determines a payment, a budget, a bonus, a ranking, or a headcount.<br/><br/>For each one, state whether the AI can influence that number, and by how much.<br/><br/>Sort by how much money moves per unit of influence.<br/><br/>I am not asking whether anyone intends to game it. I am asking where it would happen without anyone intending anything.<br/><br/>WORKFLOW:<br/>[paste]
I deployed this AI system without recording a proper before-state.<br/><br/>From the data below, reconstruct the best baseline you can for the period before deployment.<br/><br/>Be explicit about what you can and cannot establish. Where a comparison is not valid because something else changed at the same time, say so rather than producing a number.<br/><br/>A defensible "we cannot tell" is more useful to me than a confident figure I will quote in a meeting.<br/><br/>DATA:<br/>[paste]
Here is a pattern that looks like my AI is gaming a metric.<br/><br/>Argue the other side as strongly as you can. What is the legitimate explanation in which this rise is real, correct and good?<br/><br/>Then tell me what evidence would distinguish the benign explanation from the gaming one.<br/><br/>Do not hedge between them. Give me the discriminating test.<br/><br/>PATTERN:<br/>[paste]
Below is a vendor's claim about what their AI tool delivers.<br/><br/>For each claimed benefit, tell me:<br/>1. What exactly is being measured<br/>2. Who benefits if that number goes up<br/>3. Whether the claim would still hold if the number rose without the underlying reality changing<br/><br/>Flag every claim where the metric and the benefit are the same measurement wearing two names.<br/><br/>CLAIM:<br/>[paste]
Design the smallest ongoing check that would tell me if this AI system starts optimising the metric instead of the outcome.<br/><br/>Requirements:<br/>1. It must measure a downstream reality, not the system's own output<br/>2. It must be cheap enough to run monthly forever<br/>3. It must have a threshold defined NOW, before I have any emotional stake in the result<br/>4. State what I will do if the threshold trips<br/><br/>One page. If I cannot run it every month, it is too complicated.<br/><br/>SYSTEM:<br/>[paste]